What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Catchall said:
Nothing would stir Trump supporters to come out in droves to re-elect their guy more than giving Joe Biden the ticket. Not only is he seen as a wishy washy establishment lackey, he was the Vice President under Obama. The last thing Dems want to do is harken back to the Obama administration that got Trump elected in the first place.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Imo, Trump voters will show up no matter who’s the democratic nominee. You don’t think trump voters wouldn’t be motivated if Sanders (a socialist!), Harris (a black female), Warren (Hitlery 2.0), or that Washington Gov (his Christ is global heating) were the nominee?

The trick isn’t to avoid irritating trump voters. They’re going to be pissed off and vote no matter what. That’s what Fox News, am radio, and trump’s twitter does. They’re older and whiter, so they’ll always show up to vote. “They’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!”

Imo, The trick is reigniting the democratic base to vote in waves as they did in 2008 and 2012. Who gets democrats excited?
 
Red said:
Presidential candidates are marketed. Like any other product. And marketing means slinging the bull, mischaracterizing rivals, etc. We do indeed decide, at least many do, based on emotional responses, and the campaigns that market their candidates understand that. So they aim to make their brand, their product, likeable, and through negative ads, make all those other brands unlikable. Come campaign season, all politicians running for office, or vying for nominations, are products to be marketed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimber...-insight-from-a-marco-rubio-campaign-insider/
Click to expand...
This.

I would argue that anyone who believes that the majority of voters delve any deeper into the issues or candidates than sound bites or advertisements is highly naive.
 
This is why I just laugh at the idea that it required a "highly sophisticated" secret black op to sway the last election. All most people need to sway their vote imo is a reason for outrage and confirmation bias. That's all it takes. The people posting here with strong feelings one way or the other and are at least partially informed are in the minority. Imo most people vote on emotion and what makes them feel vindicated in their personal views, not any in-depth analysis of a candidate's platform and qualifications.
 
One Brow said:
The notion that "some ancestry in the past 10 generations" is the same as "1/1024".
Click to expand...
Is the true figure greater than or less then 1/1024? How much?
 
LogGrad98 said:
This.

I would argue that anyone who believes that the majority of voters delve any deeper into the issues or candidates than sound bites or advertisements is highly naive.
Click to expand...

And television had so much to do with this development. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, in part because of his poor physical appearance during the first televised debates. In 1968, on the other hand, Nixon was marketed far more effectively...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/908766.The_Selling_of_the_President

"The 1968 presidential campaign crystallized the union between the politician and the adman. They have been inseparable ever since. Upon Nixon’s victory, (Roger)Aisles accurately pronounced that “this is the way that they’ll be elected forever more”. Since the rise of television, the politician has become a performer, judged by how well he can handle himself; how good he looks; and whether he can make the audience laugh or feel warm inside. As McGinniss writes, “Style becomes the substance. The medium is the massage and the masseur gets the vote.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top