The Name Calling. Who is to Blame?
CIVILTALK
Finding the Truth
FUD Monitor
Week of October 9, 2026 – October 16, 2026
The Trump Effect? Name-Calling, Negative Ads and Who Is Really to Blame
The Takeaway
Name-calling is no longer just Donald Trump’s style. In the most competitive Senate races of 2026, candidates in both parties are reaching for the short, sticky insult — “trust-fund kid,” “bigot,” “con man,” “sock puppet,” “jihadist.” As one political scientist told USA Today, the goal is to compress an entire political argument into a few memorable words.
That compression is exactly how FUD works. A label hands us fear, uncertainty and doubt without the evidence, and it sorts a person into a category we already have feelings about. This week’s examples come from both parties on purpose: the question is not who insults more, but what this habit is doing to us.
When leaders on every side replace arguments with labels, what happens to a culture that is built on values and behavior? Does it move us away from seeking commonality and middle ground — and toward more extreme values and more extreme behavior?
Why We’re Watching
USA Today, Oct. 16 (Arit John): “The Trump effect? Name-calling and insults surge in midterm elections.”
The article reports that candidates use insults to define opponents and break through an increasingly competitive attention economy, and that in debates, policy has frequently taken a back seat to bickering. Strategists from both parties explained why:
Brandon Rottinghaus (Univ. of Houston): name-calling has become a test of political toughness and a shortcut to defining opponents.
Alex Conant (Republican strategist): voters are flooded with information, so branding your opponent first is a huge advantage.
Caitlin Legacki (Democratic strategist): sparring can read as authentic to independent and moderate men but can feel forced and turn off others, notably Democratic women. She says she generally hates it.
Similar coverage this month:
CNN, Oct. 8: personal insults dominated the Georgia, Michigan and Maine Senate debates.
NBC News, Oct. 13: at an Ohio rally, Trump attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar and El-Sayed as crowds chanted “deport”; Sen. John Kennedy separately accused El-Sayed of sympathizing with Osama bin Laden.
Fox News, Oct. 15: Vice President Vance called El-Sayed a “little weasel”; the same day El-Sayed mocked Trump’s “very small hands.”
CNN, Oct. 16: the Alaska and Maine Senate debates turned bitter and personal, each side portraying the other as corrupt.
The Hill, Sept.: El-Sayed said Trump’s attacks were making him the “main character of the midterms” — being insulted can itself be an attention asset.
This Week’s Examples
Three Republican and three Democratic examples, each paired with a CI Reframe based on the CivilTalk Conversational Intelligence Model.
Example 1 · President Donald Trump (R) on Abdul El-Sayed (D), Michigan Senate nominee
Quote: Has called El-Sayed a “jihadist” and referred to him as “Mohammed.” (His first name is Abdul.)
Context: Repeated at rallies and on Truth Social in the weeks before the Michigan Senate election. El-Sayed, who is Muslim, said the attacks use his name and faith to distract voters from gas and grocery prices.
Why it fits: Textbook FUD and labeling. “Jihadist” attaches a terror category to a candidate with no evidence offered, and renaming him by a different Muslim name turns his faith itself into the accusation. Listeners supply the fear; the speaker never has to prove anything.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Clear-cut.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16); NBC News (Oct. 13); CNN (Oct. 14)
“I strongly disagree with Abdul El-Sayed on the economy and on Israel. Here is his record, here is mine, and I’m asking Michigan voters to judge us on both.”
CI skills: Self-Management (impulse control) · Social Awareness (respect for the person while disagreeing with the position)
Why it works: Clarion makes the disagreement visible: a named policy difference voters can test replaces an identity label they can only fear.
Example 2 · Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
Quote: Called Ossoff a “trust-fund kid.”
Context: Oct. 8 Georgia Senate debate. Ossoff received a large inheritance from his grandfather and reports a blind trust valued at $1–5 million; he has faced attacks on his family wealth since his first Senate run.
Why it fits: The label rests on a real fact but uses it to sort Ossoff into a resentment category — unearned, out of touch — instead of making an argument about his votes or policies.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Borderline. The underlying fact is accurate; the label is doing the persuading.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16)
“Senator Ossoff comes from a very different financial position than most Georgia families. So I’d ask him directly: how does his plan on [taxes/cost of living] help someone living paycheck to paycheck?”
CI skills: Social Awareness (understanding the audience’s real concern) · Relationship Management (turning a jab into a question)
Why it works: Clarion makes the real question visible — whether his policies serve working families — instead of leaving voters with a sneer.
Example 3 · Mike Rogers (R), Michigan Senate nominee, on Abdul El-Sayed (D)
Quote: Called El-Sayed a “con man” and a “glitchy AI chatbot,” and suggested surveillance might worry someone with family members on a “watch list.”
Context: Oct. 8 Michigan Senate debate, during a discussion of Flock cameras. El-Sayed answered, “Go ahead and say it,” arguing Rogers was tiptoeing around calling him a terrorist. Rogers also questioned El-Sayed’s credentials as a doctor.
Why it fits: “Con man” and “chatbot” are character labels; the “watch list” line is innuendo — it plants a fear without stating, or having to support, a claim.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Clear-cut on the “watch list” insinuation; borderline on “con man,” which Rogers tied to questions about El-Sayed’s background.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16); CNN (Oct. 8)
“I have specific questions about how Dr. El-Sayed has described his medical career. Here’s what I found. I’d like him to answer it tonight.”
CI skills: Self-Awareness (recognizing when frustration becomes innuendo) · Self-Management (stating the claim plainly or not at all)
Why it works: Clarion makes the accusation visible and accountable: a specific claim can be answered; an insinuation can only be feared.
Example 4 · Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) on Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA)
Quote: Has repeatedly called Collins a “bigot,” and said that if John Lewis were marching from Selma to Montgomery today, Collins “would be grabbing a billy club.”
Context: Oct. 8 Georgia Senate debate. Ossoff points to reports that Collins’ former chief of staff was in a group chat with white supremacist Nick Fuentes and that his son-in-law, who lives in a Collins-owned property, is a white nationalist influencer. Collins said he condemns antisemitism, racism and hate.
Why it fits: The concern is grounded in reported facts, but “bigot” delivers a verdict on Collins’ character, and the billy-club line assigns him imagined violence in a historical scene.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Borderline. The questions are legitimate; the label and the hypothetical go beyond them.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16), citing Slate and CNN reporting
“Congressman Collins says he condemns racism and antisemitism. Then Georgians deserve answers: why was his chief of staff in that chat, and what has he done about it? That’s the record I want voters to see.”
CI skills: Self-Management (holding conviction without escalation) · Relationship Management (accountability without dehumanizing)
Why it works: Clarion makes the evidence visible: the facts carry the weight, so voters can judge them instead of a label.
Example 5 · Abdul El-Sayed (D), Michigan Senate nominee, on Mike Rogers (R)
Quote: Called Rogers a “sock puppet” for Trump and, at the debate, mocked him: “Weak. Cowardly. Won’t stand up until his poll numbers drop.”
Context: Oct. 8 Michigan Senate debate. El-Sayed pointed to Rogers’ earlier praise of Trump’s tariffs and his recent reversal as Michigan’s economy felt the effects.
Why it fits: There is a real argument underneath — a policy reversal — but “sock puppet” and “weak, cowardly” convert it into a character verdict.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Borderline. The tariff reversal is a fair target; the labels are not needed to make it.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16); CNN (Oct. 8)
“Mike Rogers praised these tariffs. Now, as Michigan families pay for them, he’s changed his position. I’d like him to tell voters which position he’ll vote for in the Senate.”
CI skills: Self-Awareness (noticing the urge to win the moment) · Social Awareness (what voters actually need to know)
Why it works: Clarion makes the contradiction visible — a documented change in position — which is more persuasive than an insult and easier to verify.
Example 6 · Abdul El-Sayed (D) on Mike Rogers (R) and Vice President JD Vance (R)
Quote: Said Rogers had “beta energy” and challenged him to a tackle football match; questioned whether Vance’s beard was real and challenged him to meet in a weight room. (Vance had called El-Sayed’s beard “patchy.”)
Context: Campaign trail and a TMZ DC interview, August–September. USA Today notes that younger male candidates in both parties are building pugnacious “fighter” brands.
Why it fits: No policy content at all. It is a masculinity test — the same kind of attack El-Sayed and Talarico have condemned when aimed at them.
Clear-cut vs. borderline: Clear-cut — and mutual, as Vance’s “patchy beard” jab shows.
Source: USA Today (Oct. 16)
“Nobody in Michigan is voting on who can bench-press more. They’re voting on whose plan lowers their costs. Here’s mine.”
CI skills: Self-Management (resisting the bait) · Relationship Management (redirecting to shared stakes)
Why it works: Clarion makes the distraction visible — and shows that refusing the bait can look stronger than taking it.
Also noted this week
Trump used an anti-transgender slur against South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Annie Andrews, who is not transgender (USA Today).
In Texas, Republicans have called Democrat James Talarico “Talafreako” and falsely claimed he is vegan; Vance has questioned his sexuality (USA Today).
The counter-move: Talarico started selling “I’m a Talafreako” shirts and pivoted to his opponent’s record — what Rottinghaus called political jujitsu. Is that an escape from the label cycle, or a smarter way of playing inside it?
By the Numbers
2026: the most expensive midterm ever
$11.6 billion in projected political ad spending — a record for any cycle, midterm or presidential (2024 was about $11.2 billion). — AdImpact
Nearly $1 billion spent on ads since Labor Day; Senate races alone approached $500 million from Sept. 8–27. — Wesleyan Media Project
About $197 million in ads in the Ohio Senate race through late September, the most expensive race of the cycle. — AdImpact
57% of all federal ad airings this cycle feature the president — over 70% of pro-GOP ads and 50% of pro-Democratic ads as of June. — Wesleyan Media Project
164+ AI-generated ads, $80 million+ in spending; about 80% pro-Republican, and 69% carried no AI disclosure. — Wesleyan Media Project
Nearly one-fifth of pro-GOP Senate broadcast ads from Sept. 8–27 carried anti-transgender messaging. — Wesleyan Media Project
Negative ads over time
2010: more than half of all ads were pure attack ads; counting contrast ads, about 2 in 3 were negative — then the most negative cycle on record. — Wesleyan Media Project
2014 Senate races: about 1 in 4 negative ads rated low in civility, though 90% were judged relevant to the race. — Oxford University Press study
2018: about 50% of federal ads purely negative — a similar share to 2014, but far more ads, so voters saw more negativity than ever. — Wesleyan Media Project
2020 Senate races: negative ads topped 70% of airings in the final week. — Wesleyan Media Project
2024 general election: issue groups alone aired more than 618,000 pure-attack spots. — Wesleyan Media Project
Does it work?
Not reliably. A review of 111 studies found no reliable evidence that negative campaigning wins votes — but it slightly lowers trust in government and political efficacy. — Lau, Sigelman & Rovner, Journal of Politics (2007)
Contempt travels. In 2.7 million posts from news outlets and members of Congress, each word about the opposing party raised the odds of a share by 67%. — Rathje et al., PNAS (2021)
We say we hate it. 85% of Americans said political debate had become more negative and less respectful; 73% said officials should avoid heated language that could encourage violence. — Pew Research Center (2019)
We blame the other side. 69% said Republicans had gone too far with inflammatory language and 60% said Democrats had — yet few partisans said their own side had. — Gallup (fall 2025)
History: This Is Not New
American politics has been personal from the start. What has changed is the speed, the volume and the money.
1800: Adams’ and Jefferson’s partisans traded charges of tyranny, atheism and moral ruin through pamphlets and newspapers.
1828: Andrew Jackson was accused of murder in “coffin handbills,” and his wife’s marriage was attacked as bigamy.
1860s: Lincoln was called a baboon, an ape and a tyrant.
1884: “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” mocked Grover Cleveland — the chant was the meme of its day.
1964: LBJ’s “Daisy” ad implied Barry Goldwater could start a nuclear war without ever naming him. It aired once.
1988: The Willie Horton ads tied Michael Dukakis to a furloughed prisoner and were widely criticized as racially coded.
2004: An outside group’s attack on John Kerry’s war record gave us the verb “swift-boating.”
2010: Citizens United opened the door to unlimited outside spending; groups, not candidates, now sponsor most attack ads.
2016: “Low Energy” Jeb, “Little Marco,” “Crooked Hillary” — the nickname moved from the 30-second ad into the candidate’s own mouth, every day.
2026: Both parties answer in kind, and AI-generated ads put words in opponents’ mouths they never said.
The pattern: every new medium — pamphlet, newspaper, TV, cable, social media and now AI — lowered the cost and raised the reach of personal attack. The technology changed. The human appetite it feeds did not.
Who Is to Blame?
Four places to put the responsibility. Each has a case — and a counter-case.
1. Trump — the accelerant
No modern figure has made the personal insult a brand the way he has, and others learned that it works.
Counter-case: insults predate him by two centuries, and negative ads passed 50% in 2010. He may be a symptom of an audience ready for him.
2. The responders — those who answer in kind
“Trust-fund kid,” “bigot,” “sock puppet,” “beta energy”: when the other side matches the tone, the norm loses its last defender.
Counter-case: unilateral restraint can look like weakness. Is it fair to ask one side to disarm alone?
3. History and the system — the machine pays for it
Super PACs insulate candidates from their own tone, platforms reward out-group contempt with 67% more shares per word, and $11.6 billion is chasing our attention.
Counter-case: “the system made me do it” is the oldest excuse. Systems are made of people making choices.
4. Us — the audience that rewards it
- Every insult that works, works on someone. We share it, laugh at it, donate after it and repeat it. Politicians are selling what we buy.
Why do we embrace it? Passionate Uncertainty
CivilTalk calls it Passionate Uncertainty: fervent advocacy for an idea or position when our understanding of it is incomplete or superficial — the collision of conviction and ignorance. It is not simply being uninformed; it is being animated by emotion rather than guided by reflection and reason.
An insult is its perfect fuel. “Con man,” “bigot” or “jihadist” lets us take a side fervently while knowing almost nothing. And CivilTalk is honest about why we fall for it: Passionate Uncertainty is a natural human impulse.
We want to belong. Repeating our side’s label signals loyalty, whether or not we understand the issue.
We want to be heard. In an attention economy, a sharp label feels like the only way to get noticed.
We want to make a difference. Sharing an insult feels like action, even when it changes nothing.
We prefer certainty. Fervent conviction is more comfortable than “I don’t understand this well enough yet.”
We reward authenticity over truth. CivilTalk cites Allan Bloom’s warning about that trade; “talking tough” can earn applause that accuracy never would.
Before we answer “Who is to blame?”, it is worth asking whether it is the right question. Assigning blame is itself a kind of labeling. Ask it in a room of people who disagree and it tends to split in seconds — “it’s Trump” versus “it’s the left” — reproducing in miniature the very dynamic we are trying to understand.
Gallup’s numbers show the trap. Americans of both parties largely agree that political rhetoric has gone too far — and largely locate the problem on the other side. If every side sees itself as only responding, then everyone is a responder and no one is accountable.
So the more useful question may be smaller and harder: Which label has my own side used that I repeated or enjoyed? And what will I stop rewarding between now and Election Day?
That doesn’t erase the fact that some voices carry more weight than others. Questioning the question is not a way to spread blame thin — it is a way to make sure we don’t exempt ourselves.
The antidote
CivilTalk’s answer is conversational and emotional intelligence: the capacity to pause before reacting, regulate the response and channel passion into constructive action. The goal is not less conviction. It is balancing conviction with humility, emotion with reason, and advocacy with curiosity.
Bring it to a CivilTalk Circle
Which of this week’s six labels bothered you most — and which did you find yourself agreeing with?
Is a label aimed at someone’s faith or name different in kind from “sock puppet” or “trust-fund kid”?
If negative ads don’t reliably win votes, why do campaigns keep running them?
When did you last feel certain about a candidate before you knew the facts?
Let’s Clarion This! Ask the AI to rewrite one of this week’s insults as a factual, testable claim — then compare.
About This Monitor
Finding the Truth is CivilTalk’s weekly FUD Monitor. Each week we highlight examples of FUD — fear, uncertainty and doubt — and labeling by political leaders, balanced across the political spectrum, and pair each with a reframe based on the CivilTalk Conversational Intelligence Model and its four domains: Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management.
Our method: we draw examples from reported news coverage, quote only what is on the record, and mark each example as clear-cut or borderline. A borderline label may rest on a real fact; we flag it because the label, not the fact, is doing the persuading. The aim is not to score points for either party. It is nonpartisan encouragement for leaders — and for all of us — to do better.
Sources
USA Today — The Trump effect? Name-calling and insults surge in midterm elections (Oct. 16, 2026)
CNN — Personal insults fly in heated Michigan, Georgia, Maine Senate debates (Oct. 8, 2026)
CNN — Republicans take an ominous turn in their midterm campaign (Oct. 14, 2026)
NBC News — Trump attacks Rep. Ilhan Omar and Abdul El-Sayed at Ohio rally
CNN via ABC17 — Bitter personal attacks in Alaska and Maine Senate debates (Oct. 16, 2026)
The Hill — El-Sayed says Trump is making him the main character of the midterms
Wesleyan Media Project — Midterm ad discussion revolves around Trump (June 2026)
Wesleyan Media Project — Immigration and police top concerns (Aug. 2026)
Wesleyan Media Project — Dems lag in Senate ad spending (Oct. 1, 2026)
Al Jazeera — AI deepfake ads grow more popular in US midterm campaigns
CNBC — Mike Rogers breaks with Trump in Michigan Senate race
Deseret News — Where parties are spending the most in midterm races
Knight Foundation — Negativity rules in ads for midterm elections (2010)
WFSU/NPR — Tracking this year’s negative political ads (2018)
Lau, Sigelman & Rovner — The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns (2007)
Pew Research Center — Political debate has grown more toxic (2019)
Gallup via TNND — Americans say both parties have gone too far
CivilTalk — Passionate Uncertainty: When Conviction Outpaces Understanding
CivilTalk — To Observe and Protect Against FUD that is Everywhere
Historical examples are drawn from the standard record of U.S. presidential campaigns.
Better Conversations | Stronger Relationships | Better Outcomes