Brace yourself for months more of such ads: Priorities is sure to continue using Trump’s own words against him, in various and damning combinations. And why wouldn’t they? He makes it so easy, and it’s all right there, on Twitter and on tape, ready to be spliced into something that sounds even more revolting than the original.

Clinton’s strategy is smart: Studies show that voters trust super PACs more than candidates.

Relying on Priorities USA could also give Clinton a leg up on Trump this spring and summer. For now, at least, Trump doesn’t have one main super PAC to counter her attack-by-proxy strategy. As Politico has reported, a messy and fascinating power struggle has been raging between at least 24 super PACs that say they are supporting the presumptive Republican nominee. Two of the most active—Great America PAC and Committed for American Sovereignty—are jockeying to become the main surrogate for the Trump campaign in the general election. Others, according to Politico, “appear to be spending most of their money on contracts with favored consultants,” rather than funneling it into efforts to boost the candidate. As a result, Trump advisors have disavowed several groups, and now, the rival PACs are accusing each other of being scams.

Campaign-finance laws bar Trump from coordinating with a super PAC. But until he can make it clear, indirectly, that one main group has his blessing, this power struggle will continue. Big donors won’t know where to go, and as a result, Trump won’t be able to raise the big money—at least $1 billion, according to experts—needed to keep up with Clinton.

We won’t know until November, of course, whether Priorities’ attacks will put a lasting dent in Trump. But the likelihood is they’ll do him some damage—without any collateral damage to Clinton’s favorability. That’s because the idea of outsourcing attacks is based on more than the Swift Boat precedent: There’s growing evidence that negative ads really do work better when they come from an outside group. New research shows that the ads bankrolled by those outside groups with the vague, patriotic names are an almost foolproof way to bludgeon any opponent without generating any blowback for the candidate. In fact, having allies launch super PAC attacks can actually make a candidate like Bush—or Clinton—look better in voters’ eyes.



Candidates and their operatives have long known that going negative can be risky. “When a candidate airs a negative ad against their opponent, voters tend to form a more unfavorable opinion of the attacker,” says political scientist Pat Meirick, who studies political advertising at the University of Oklahoma. That’s why campaigns have tended to delegate their dirty work to outside groups—a trend that was accelerated by the 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend to their hearts’ content. But until recently, the research about attack ads sponsored by PACs was ambivalent. Did they really persuade voters? Did they carry any of the same risks of backfiring on a candidate?