“Talk about extreme.” That was the response of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris at September’s televised debate, after her rival, Donald Trump, made the baseless claim that migrants had been eating the dogs and cats of their neighbours in Springfield, Ohio.

Despite mounting criticism, Trump doubled down on the accusation. Likewise, during the more recent vice-presidential debate, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, falsely claimed that the migrants in Springfield are illegal.

The arrival of hurricanes Milton and Helene then gave them more opportunities to disseminate disinformation. Trump’s team attacked the government over its response to the disaster, claiming that government money earmarked for disaster victims has been spent on migrants who crossed illegally into the US.

“Kamala spent all her Fema [Federal Emergency Management Agency] money – billions of dollars – on housing for illegal migrants”, Trump said at a rally in Michigan. This point was also repeated by Vance in an opinion piece on October 8 in the Wall Street Journal.

The claim is false. But does it make sense for Trump’s team to spread such extreme disinformation? Mathematical analysis suggests it can.

The positions of the candidates on the various issues, such as migration, can be represented on the political spectrum from the left to the right. It is fair to say that Trump places himself at the right end of the spectrum,........

© The Conversation