Donald Trump’s public behavior, including his insults, compliments, and shifting alliances, is far from haphazard. He weaponizes insults, alliances, “falling-outs,” and praise to strategically bolster his own popularity and control the media narrative. From publicly disowning allies when they become liabilities, to cozying up with rising stars like NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani, every move is calculated to make himself look strong while destabilizing anyone who might outshine him. For progressives and voters watching closely, this isn’t mere politics — it’s a warning that even well-intentioned figures can be co-opted and manipulated in Trump’s carefully orchestrated game of power and perception.
I. How Trump Times Insults
Strategic Targets
Trump does not rely on traditional polling or data-driven strategies in a granular sense. Instead, his attacks are carefully calibrated according to situational threats and opportunities:
- Attack most aggressively when his popularity is slipping or when he feels threatened.
- Attack least when he is popular or when maintaining unity benefits him.
- Target rising figures aggressively — opponents or allies gaining popularity can become threats.
- Rarely attack the already unpopular, unless reinforcing a narrative or linking them to a larger enemy (e.g., “the deep state”).
- Immediate attacks follow scandals or negative news cycles to reset media coverage.
The underlying principle is dominance signaling and narrative control, rather than mere reaction to polling data.
Behavioral Pattern Analysis
1. Attacks During Popularity Slumps
- Pattern: When Trump’s own poll numbers dip, he increases insults dramatically, both in frequency and intensity.
- Purpose:
- Restore dominance
- Frame conflicts as “us vs. them”
- Reassert control of media agendas
- Contrast: When his numbers are strong, Trump attacks less and focuses on bragging, claiming credit, and performing a celebratory persona.
Bottom line: Low popularity triggers offense mode; high popularity triggers celebration mode.
2. Targeting Rising Opponents
- Mechanism: Trump strikes at the exact moment when a rival gains media attention, poll momentum, or elite endorsements.
- Exceptions: He rarely attacks targets whose popularity has already collapsed unless it reinforces his dominance narrative.
- Conclusion: Almost all insults are threat-responsive.
3. Media Timing of Insults
Trump’s insults also serve as tools to hijack media attention:
- Released when scandals or damaging stories gain traction
- Designed to bury rival coverage
- Often coincide with indictments, losses, or media cycles that threaten his visibility
This is deliberate agenda control, not random provocation.
4. Caution Toward Popular Figures
Trump avoids insulting figures who are widely beloved or admired by his base. Exceptions occur only when betrayal or growing threat emerges. Examples include military heroes, some pop culture icons, and popular GOP governors until they cross him.
Tactical Patterns
Trump’s timing corresponds to three interconnected strategies:
- Threat-Based Timing: Attacks rising or influential rivals or disloyal allies.
- Dominance-Reassertion Timing: Attacks after dips in his own popularity or negative media coverage.
- Audience-Calibration Timing: Avoids insulting popular figures or allies when unity is valuable.
Psychological Drivers: dominance maintenance, threat detection, attention competition, and base reinforcement.
II. Disowning Allies: The Reputation Firewall
Trump’s relationship with allies mirrors his insult strategy — he disowns, distances, or threatens to cut ties with those who become liabilities.
1. Allies Who Become Poll Problems
Trump monitors Republican favorability closely. When an ally becomes a public embarrassment or liability (donors, Evangelicals, independents, or the general public), he distances himself.
Examples:
- Steve Bannon – insulted after losing donor support
- Scott Pruitt – distanced during corruption scandals
- Rex Tillerson – labeled “dumb as a rock” after reputation collapse
- John Bolton – attacked post-approval decline and critical book
- Anthony Scaramucci – disowned after becoming a punchline
2. Allies in Legal Trouble
Trump reacts to legal exposure by insulting, downplaying, or publicly disowning associates:
Examples:
- Michael Cohen – reframed as “weak” during legal risk
- Paul Manafort – reclassified as “volunteer” after federal charges
- George Papadopoulos – “low-level coffee boy” after guilty plea
- Roger Stone – warmth contingent on loyalty
Timing aligns with peaks in legal scrutiny, negative public opinion, and shifting media narratives.
3. Allies Unpopular With the Base
Trump’s base is his primary audience. He preemptively turns on allies who become “RINOs” or symbols of weakness.
Examples:
- Brian Kemp & Brad Raffensperger (Georgia)
- Mike Pence (post–January 6)
- Mitch McConnell (after MAGA backlash)
- Bill Barr (after disputing the stolen-election narrative)
4. Trial Balloons
Trump often floats “considering cutting ties” statements to test reactions, signal leverage, or see media framing.
Examples:
- Elon Musk
- Jeff Sessions
- Jerome Powell
- Fauci
- Kash Patel – currently, with low favorability and perceived incompetence, Trump reportedly considers ousting Patel from the FBI. This is classic trial-balloon strategy.
5. Maintaining Popular Allies
Trump rarely disowns popular allies or those with influence, loyal fan bases, fundraising ability, or alignment with key GOP blocs.
Reasons for Distancing from Unpopular Allies:
- Brand maintenance
- Dominance signaling
- Cost containment
- Narrative control
- Loyalty testing
Conclusion: Timing is strategic and predictable.
III. The Compliment Weapon
Trump also leverages compliments as a manipulation tool:
- Divide Opponent Coalitions: Praise one figure to undermine another (e.g., Bernie Sanders to needle Clinton/Biden).
- Co-opt or Peel Off Supporters: Compliments target authenticity to neutralize threats.
- Scarcity Reward: Praise is earned through obedience or submission (e.g., Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy).
- Soften the Knife: Compliment before attack (e.g., Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr).
- Appear Fair: Compliments make Trump seem above the fray, particularly effective with Bernie Sanders’ supporters.
IV. Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren: Strategic Contrast
Bernie Sanders is one of the very few national politicians Trump treats unusually carefully — especially given Bernie’s popularity and fiercely loyal base.
Trump’s behavior toward Sanders does not follow the same pattern he uses with:
- rising GOP rivals (e.g., DeSantis),
- embattled allies (e.g., Sessions), or
- celebrity figures with big platforms (e.g., Musk).
Instead, Trump treats Bernie with a mix of strategic restraint, selective praise, and targeted blame of the Democratic Party — and that’s because of Bernie’s loyalty-driven base and high personal favorability.
Why Trump Rarely Directly Insults Bernie Sanders
(Unlike almost everyone else)
1. Bernie is genuinely popular with left-leaning independents and younger voters
Trump tends to avoid attacking people who have a large, energized, cross-demographic supporter base unless they are a direct immediate threat.
Bernie’s base is:
- intensely loyal
- ideologically consistent
- anti-corporate, anti-establishment
- skeptical of Democratic leadership
- big on online discourse
- younger and very online — meaning they clap back hard
Attacking someone with a supportive and aggressive online army is risky for Trump.
He thrives on asymmetric fights, not fights where the other side’s base is equally energized.
Why Trump Instead Tries to Co-opt Bernie’s Base
This is the key.
Trump’s public comments about Bernie focus on two themes:
A. Compliments about Bernie's authenticity
He has said versions of:
- “Bernie is honest.”
- “Bernie doesn’t lie.”
- “Bernie is right about the system being rigged.”
(These are strategic flattery signals.)
B. Attacks on the DNC for “rigging” against Bernie
He repeatedly says:
- “They stole it from Bernie in 2016.”
- “They did it to him again in 2020.”
- “The Democrats treated Bernie very badly.”
These statements are not pro-Bernie.
They are anti-establishment and anti-DNC, designed for cross-ideological appeal.
Why?
Trump knows that the people most sympathetic to Bernie are also:
- suspicious of Democratic elites,
- critical of corporate power,
- angry about the 2016 primary,
- suspicious of insider politics.
Trump speaks to those emotions, not to Bernie directly.
Trump wants to peel off a slice of Bernie’s base
Not the majority — just 2–5% of them.
This was part of his strategy in:
- 2016 vs. Clinton (appealing to disaffected Sanders voters in MI, WI, PA)
- 2020 vs. Biden (revival attempts, less effective due to polarization)
His messaging implies:
“Bernie is the one good guy, but they cheated him. So if you’re angry, aim that anger at the Democrats, not at me.”
This is highly strategic.
So why doesn’t Trump insult Bernie like he insults others?
Reason #1: Bernie isn’t an establishment figure
Trump’s insults work best when aimed at:
- elites
- insiders
- perceived sellouts
- privileged figures
- “swamp creatures”
Bernie is:
- the opposite of a traditional establishment figure
- ideologically consistent
- seen as authentic across many political subcultures
Bernie does not fit Trump’s insult ecosystem.
Reason #2: Insulting Bernie risks energizing the left
Bernie’s supporters are:
- hardcore voters
- highly mobilized
- strongly anti-Trump
- willing to organize, not just tweet
Triggering them is unproductive for Trump.
Trump prefers fights where his attacks fracture the other side.
Bernie’s base is unusually cohesive, so attacking Bernie unifies them instead.
That’s the opposite of what Trump wants.
Reason #3: Bernie is not a direct electoral threat
In head-to-head match-ups, Bernie has rarely run against Trump directly.
Trump focuses insults on:
- people directly competing with him
- people who dominate media cycles
- people whose rise threatens his dominance
Bernie hasn’t occupied that lane since early 2020.
So Trump saves his ammo.
Reason #4: Trump genuinely respects some of Bernie’s anti-elite framing
Not ideologically — strategically.
They share:
- anti-corporate language (weaponized differently)
- anti-interventionist sentiment (to varying degrees)
- appeal to working-class resentment
- attacks on elite institutions
Trump likely sees Bernie as:
- a “mirror enemy,”
- a populist from the other camp,
- but not someone who undermines Trump’s identity narrative.
Thus insulting Bernie is unnecessary and strategically dumb.
Trump’s “Bernie strategy” in one sentence:
He praises Bernie personally, attacks the Democratic Party for “cheating” him, and tries to siphon off a small but crucial segment of disillusioned Sanders supporters without ever making Bernie himself the villain.
Here’s a clear, structured deep-dive into:
- Why Trump attacked Elizabeth Warren relentlessly, while avoiding full-scale attacks on Bernie Sanders
- How Trump uses “compliments” as a political weapon and strategic manipulation technique
These two topics connect in a revealing way.
Why Trump Went After Elizabeth Warren Aggressively
(While being restrained toward Bernie)
Trump’s pattern with Warren is the inverse of his pattern with Sanders.
Bernie is:
- authentically populist
- anti-establishment
- extremely consistent over decades
- personally popular
- seen as “principled” by supporters & critics alike
- unlikely to be peeled away from their base
Warren is:
- progressive in policy,
- but not rooted in a populist movement like Sanders
- more academically framed
- less personally popular
- perceived by some on the left as a “bridge” figure between progressives and establishment Dems
- vulnerable to Trump’s “inauthenticity” framing
Trump recognized that Warren’s base was:
- smaller
- less loyal
- less unified
- more persuadable
- more sensitive to authenticity attacks
So he went all in on attacking her with the “Pocahontas” insult and authenticity narratives.
Why Warren was a prime Trump target
1. Authenticity Vulnerability
Trump’s primary mode of attack is to accuse opponents of being:
- phonies
- frauds
- hypocrites
- self-interested insiders
Warren’s claimed Native ancestry — even if she acted in good faith — gave Trump a durable authenticity attack surface.
Sanders has no equivalent vulnerability.
2. Warren’s Base Was Movable
Warren’s supporters:
- overlapped with educated liberals and suburban voters
- were less ideologically rigid than Sanders supporters
- were more responsive to electability arguments
- were less loyal to Warren personally
Trump knew he could use insults to:
- weaken her in Democratic primaries
- frame her as untrustworthy
- push some voters toward Biden or back toward the center
- sow division between Warren and Sanders supporters
3. Warren Threatened Biden in a Way That Benefited Trump
In 2019, Warren briefly surged in the Democratic polls.
Trump prefers:
- opponents with high negatives
- opponents connected to establishment baggage
- older, institutional candidates
- candidates he can easily caricature
Warren was:
- energetic,
- policy-detailed,
- capable of mobilizing younger voters,
- and capable of unifying some progressives and liberals.
A Warren nomination was more unpredictable than a Biden nomination.
Thus Trump targeted her sharply — trying to kneecap her early.
4. Warren Has a Professor Persona
Academic or technocratic personas are easier for Trump to frame as:
- elitist
- “smarty-pants”
- disconnected
- condescending
- hypocritical liberals
Sanders is a populist street-fighter archetype — harder to frame as elite.
5. Warren engaged back, which amplified Trump
Sanders almost never nibbles the bait.
Warren responded to Trump, giving him oxygen.
Trump thrives on reactive opponents.
This demonstrates Trump’s calculus: attack where effective, praise or co-opt where direct attack risks backfire.
V. Trump’s Cozy-Up with Zohran Mamdani: Strategic Parasite
Trump’s recent White House meeting with NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani illustrates the same principles:
- Brand Siphoning:
- Trump’s favorability is extremely low; Mamdani’s is rising.
- The photo-op presents Trump as bipartisan, reasonable, and relevant.
- Media attention and “unlikely alliance” optics benefit Trump’s image.
- Tainting the Opponent:
- Association with Trump risks suspicion among progressive voters.
- Introduces ideological contamination.
- Leaves Mamdani vulnerable to internal critiques.
Outcome: Trump simultaneously borrows popularity and projects negative spillover onto Mamdani.
VI. How Mamdani Could Have Thwarted Trump
Mamdani could have thwarted Trump’s goals, but only with extremely careful framing and discipline.
Trump’s entire strategy depended on two vulnerabilities:
- Borrowing Mamdani’s popularity to rehabilitate Trump’s weak favorability
- Contaminating Mamdani’s image among his own base through proximity
Both could have been prevented — but neither was.
I. How Trump’s Strategy Worked — and Where It Was Vulnerable
Trump’s “cozy-up” move exploited two predictable psychological and media dynamics:
(A) The Photo-Op Trap
Any photo of the two of them together automatically:
- boosts Trump (Trump looks bipartisan, reasonable, relevant)
- hurts Mamdani (creates suspicion among progressives)
(B) The Narrative Frame Trap
Trump publicly framed the meeting as:
- “We get along”
- “We agree on many things”
- “He’s a rational guy”
- “We had a great time in the Oval Office”
If Mamdani didn’t aggressively contradict this framing, Trump’s version becomes the default narrative.
Trump wins twice:
- borrowed legitimacy
- inflicted ideological contamination
Both traps could have been sprung the other way.
II. What Mamdani Could Have Done: Four Strategy Paths
Below are the realistic, effective options that could have neutralized Trump’s goals.
**1. Deny the Meeting or Hold It on His Terms Only
The most effective move: Don’t go to the White House while Trump’s favorability is in freefall.
Why it works:
- denies Trump the photo-op
- denies legitimacy-transfer
- avoids ideological contamination
- signals political independence
What it risks:
- accusations of being “unwilling to work for the good of NYC”
- bad-faith right-wing narratives (“Mamdani refuses to work with the president”)
Still, it is the most airtight option.
Many big-city mayors have done this with presidents they opposed.
It’s normal.
**2. Attend — but impose strict framing before, during, and after the meeting
This is the middle strategy: meet, BUT eliminate the possibility of co-optation.
To do this, Mamdani needed to:
Before the meeting:
- explicitly state he’s attending to demand federal support for X policy (housing, transit, etc.)
- emphasize disagreement with Trump on values
- frame the meeting as adversarial but necessary
During the meeting:
- refuse all flattery
- correct Trump’s misleading claims in real time
- maintain a stiff, businesslike demeanor
- avoid any “friendly” optics
After the meeting:
- immediately hold a press conference
- emphasize disagreements
- disclose points of conflict
- present the meeting as “difficult but essential for New York”
- reject Trump’s framing (“we agree on a lot,” “great guy”)
This would have:
- prevented Trump from siphoning popularity
- prevented the contamination effect
- reinforced Mamdani’s independence
- flipped the story from “cozy-up” to “tough negotiator confronts Trump”
This strategy works only if the messaging is instant and consistent.
**3. Use Sharp Humility Framing to Block Trump’s Dominance Narrative
If Mamdani wanted to preserve goodwill but block co-optation, he could’ve used:
“I appreciate the invitation, and I’m here solely to fight for New Yorkers.”
This reframes:
- the meeting as work, not warming up
- the interaction as transactional, not friendly
- the agenda as NYC-focused, not image-focused
He also could explicitly say:
“Where we disagree, we disagree strongly. My job is not to be liked by the president.”
This prevents Trump from claiming:
- “we get along”
- “he agrees with me”
- “he’s not as left as people think”
It blocks the ideological contamination Trump wanted to inject into NYC progressives.
**4. Publicly distance after the meeting (the “reverse-taint”)
After the Oval Office appearance, Mamdani could have:
- released a statement stressing major disagreements
- emphasized that Trump misrepresented the meeting
- criticized Trump’s tone or dishonesty
- clarified that the “agreement” Trump claimed was false
- framed Trump as attempting political manipulation
This reverses the contamination:
Trump tries to taint Mamdani, but Mamdani taints Trump instead.
This would collapse Trump’s attempted narrative of:
“See, even the far-left mayor loves me now.”
Instead, it becomes:
“Trump tried to use me — and I called it out publicly.”
Progressives would rally behind that.
III. The Strategy Many Progressives Use Successfully: The “Warnock Maneuver”
Raphael Warnock perfected the formula when meeting with an unpopular opponent:
- stay professional
- stay distant
- avoid friendliness
- issue a post-meeting statement emphasizing moral disagreement
- deny the opponent any personal warmth to weaponize
Mamdani could have used this very successfully.
IV. Where Mamdani Actually Slipped
But based on available reporting, Mamdani:
- allowed friendly optics
- allowed Trump’s “we got along great” narrative to go uncontested
- did not issue strong post-meeting framing
- allowed Trump to define the meaning of the meeting
- did not sharply distance or contradict Trump’s statements
This means Trump achieved:
- Brand-siphoning
- Image-contamination
- Narrative dominance
Mamdani gave Trump all three benefits.
UPDATE: Where Mamdani Seemed to Employ Deliberate “Countermeasures” to Mitigate Trump’s Attempted Dominance Display.
Both men understood the meeting was fundamentally about optics, not policy, so it stands to reason Mamdani surely had some thoughts beforehand about the optics of visiting/paying homage to the president on behalf of his represented city.
Mamdani did position himself so Trump did have to somewhat “bend over backwards to look up at him.” By doing that, Mamdani subtly shifted the visual hierarchy of the scene. Instead of appearing deferential, he imposed a mild visual inconvenience on Trump—making Trump look slightly awkward, less physically comfortable, and more visibly committed to remaining seated. This, in turn, makes Trump’s insistence on sitting not just subliminal but overt, less able to operate on the subconscious level where such dominance displays usually function.
The result isn’t a reversal of power optics, but it does meaningfully disrupt the intended dynamic.
Additionally, Mamdani did at times position himself to appear to “tower” over Trump. He even seemed to intentionally stand stall and keep his head facing downward as if he was looking even lower than Trump was sitting, further enhancing the effect of “towering over” and “looking downward.” Trump looked relaxed and mentally “comfortable” but not positionally comfortable.
So really what we see is Trump’s techniques and Mamdani using counter-techniques. One has to wonder if that wasn’t the real source of Trump’s uncontained amusement — someone who could and was obviously playing the same game Trump was playing.
Does anyone have video of how Trump’s typically Ericksonian handshake went with Mamdani?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trumpshake-suggests-hypnosis-lisa-morgan
VII. The Full Trump Pattern
Insults:
- Rising targets
- Falling personal popularity
- Attention needs
- Threats to dominance
Compliments:
- To siphon popularity
- To contaminate opponent image
- To appear reasonable
- To build temporary alliances
Cutting Ties:
- Unpopular allies
- Negative press
- Narrative reset
- Assigning blame
Re-embracing Allies: If useful again
Trump’s worldview is transactional: no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.
VIII. Conclusion
Trump’s public behavior — insults, compliments, alliances, and disownment — follows consistent psychological and media-driven logic. His recent maneuvers, including the Mamdani meeting, exemplify his transactional, opportunistic approach:
- Exploit rising figures to rehabilitate self-image
- Damage allies through proximity
- Test loyalty and consolidate base
- Control narratives through timing
Understanding this framework explains why Trump attacks Elizabeth Warren but co-opts Bernie Sanders, distances failing allies like Kash Patel, and strategically leverages appearances with rising politicians like Mamdani. Every action is part of a carefully orchestrated calculus of dominance, narrative control, and self-preservation.
