Policy or Popularity? Which Wins Elections?

[MineralMan]

In both political parties, there are many voters who are policy wonks in one way or another. There are plenty of policy wonks who are Democrats here on DU and elsewhere on Internet discussion forums and comment areas. They're speaking to each other and firing up enthusiasm or disdain for candidates, based on their policy focus.

Guess who's not reading or listening to what they're saying, on the Internet or in other media? A vast pool of voters for whom policies is less important. Among that group, which is far larger than the group of policy wonks in either party, are the voters who will decide who wins almost every election for every office in 2020.

On what does that group base its vote? On popularity. Do they like the candidate? Does the candidate echo their thoughts about broad-based, emotional issues? Does the candidate seem sincere about what he or she says? Does the candidate make people feel good?

In 2016, Donald J. Trump was popular enough in enough states to win enough electoral votes to put that lying SOB in the White House. We want him out of the White House. What we're going to have to do is select a nominee who convinces people who aren't policy wonks to vote for that nominee. We're going to need a popular nominee. We're going to have to out-popular Trump in the general election, or we could easily lose that election.

Oddly enough, during the primary election season, more policy wonks go to the polls to vote for candidates for the nomination. The voters who put popularity issues first often can't be bothered to cast their ballots in primary elections. That can lead to nominating a policy-wonk candidate who will lose in the general election. It happens all the time, and at all levels of government.

It's politics on a retail basis. That's what general election victories are about. Retail politics. Marketing. To win, we're going to need a candidate who will be popular with the voters who don't think a lot about policy details.

Can we give them someone like that who will also have support from the policy wonk voters? Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? I think we can, if we think about it.

Another potentially unpopular post from MineralMan. Fire away!

[rampartc]

1. policy can change

but leadership, charisma seem to be more natural.

[MineralMan]

2. Policies always change, to suit the current situation.

"Charisma" is a loaded term. I don't much like it. Trump has it, in a crude form, and it appeals to a certain group of voters, and disgusts another group of voters.

I prefer "Personality." A winning candidate has to have a winning personality. It's a must in every election.

[Indygram]

27. Charisma and the ability to inspire and motivate is what wins elections

Trump appeals to a very dark, ugly and fear based charisma and ability to motivate and inspire on that level. To beat him Democrats MUST nominate someone who possesses the polar opposite type of Charisma and ability to inspire and motivate. That means the nominee needs to appeal to the innate GOODNESS, and HOPE and altruism of people. I've said it before and I will say it again...there is ONE candidate Democrats have that fits EXACTLY what is needed to beat Trump. Unfortunately, Democrats are bending over backwards trying to destroy his campaign. Beto is the one. I've studied human behavior and psychology for many, many years. I have LOADS of experience dealing with narcissists. Democrats will NOT beat Trump by trying to "fight" him in the traditional sense. They have to starve him of his narcissistic supply. The nominee will need to essentially ignore Trump and reframe whatever issue Trump is trying to push so it favors Democrats and harms Trump while still ignoring Trump. I hope Democrats wake up and stop trying so hard to wrestle defeat out of the jaws of victory because that is exactly what is going on right now.

[dalton99a]

3. It's all about personality and narrative.

Most voters base their decision on emotion, not fact or logic.

[MineralMan]

4. Exactly. Most people make most decisions on that basis.

That's the underlying principle of modern marketing. While people often think they are deciding based on their research and study of things like features lists for products, they end up making their final purchase decision emotionally about 90% of the time.

Take cars, for example. All cars pretty much have similar features, within a certain price range. People tend to buy cars based on how they look and how they will feel driving them, really, rather than on a feature-to-feature comparison. It ends up being an emotional decision in the end.

[Ron Green]

34. Wait a minute. In another thread (your own OP, in fact)

you insisted that the “Green New Deal” - your quote marks, not mine - isn’t worthy of support without detailed policy provisions. Is that your support only, or that of others? Because the GND as a brand, an emotional and aspirational touchstone, has its power therein.

[MineralMan]

40. Actually, no. The GND is a policy document, even without

details on how that policy will be delivered. It's long, complicated, and covers multiple topics. Very, very few people will read the entire resolution, even if it does get adopted by the House. It is a brand, but nobody knows exactly what they get from that brand. Even without knowing that, though, it's still a complex proposal, but without the details needed to see how it would be put into operation.

In a way, it's the worst of both worlds. It's being marketed as a brand, but is too complex and multi-faceted to be taken in quickly.

[marylandblue]

51. It's the most effective environmental branding since the Cayuhoga River caught fire.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of competition when it comes to environmental branding, so we've got to go back 50 years to an industrial accident to beat it.

If you can come up with something better, Jay inslee would probably be very receptive right now.

[Mister Ed]

8. Quite true, I'm afraid. Here's an anecdote from recent personal experience:

A lifelong friend, who's thoroughly liberal and always very well-informed, recently told me that, after careful review of all the candidates' positions, he had settled on Bernie Sanders as the one to support. "He's just plain right on every issue", my friend explained.

"So I guess, for you, it's either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, since their policy positions are virtually identical", I replied.

He shook his head. "Nah", he said, "I don't like her."

[MineralMan]

41. And there you are. In a nutshell.

[ancianita]

5. It's not either-or. Often policy is presented as personality and vice versa.

Right now we have personality as policy.

As you say, voters often don't want to pay attention to policy. It's stupid, but they don't, unless the policy is a way for them to 'stick it' to someone whose equality they resent. So populism represents identity politics, and the worst identity politics have run the country so far.

In elections, people even fall for conflating personality with policy, as they did with Trump. They voted for someone who would govern by their prejudices and fears, which they either mistake for belief and principle, or use lofty rhetoric to imply ideals that simply mask base motives. Like the racist, sexist South often has. That right there has been our most dangerous kind of identity politics.

We've had a whole history, from John C. Calhoun onward, presenting economic exploitation (slavery) as policy through the sheer force of outrage and fear mongering predictions about how the country will be destroyed unless their "policy" prevail.

It's a hard-to-eradicate kind of mental laziness when it's so easily passed down as 'teachings' in families who live in provincial areas, groupthink families who force elected officials to "represent" their provincial interests.

Provincial thinking gets eradicated in high density cities, where people contact, and must "deal" with different people, and so learn to live with difference in a way that forces the enlargment of their outlooks. So adult peer thinking, not family or hometown friends, tends to challenge, engage and improve on their 'received' notions about who or what really endangers their "freedom."

Policy and personality are nice constructs but they do tend to reinforce each other through identity politics, as I understand that term.

[MineralMan]

7. Populism won in 2016.

Actually, it won in 2008, too. Populism can work for good or it can work for evil. Hitler was also a populist.

The trick is to use populism for good. If you can do that, you can win, too. That's what we need right now, and will need next year.

Populism and popularity might seem to be the same thing, but they are not, actually. They just arise from the same word root that means "people."

[ancianita]

10. Right. And that calls for engaging the aspirations of the populace, and how right they are to have

them.

Candidates will show them how important their aspirations are for governing the country to be its greatest self. The only bad populism is the kind that panders to a time of lost 'greatness' that must be returned to, as if the populism of Trump or the red scare populism could ever do anything but lower this country's culture, governance and media's reflection of it.

There are distinctions between policy and popularity, for sure. No argument there. My explanation is about how most people conflate the two and the worst of candidates try to exploit that lazy thinking to rev up the bad populism we now have. Or else we wouldn't speak of that populace as a cult, would we.

How often do you come across the average voter -- who you've made clear isn't like you or me or DU -- who wants to engage in policy talk that isn't based on their 'received' family 'wisdoms.' I haven't.

[MineralMan]

12. The average non-wonk voter thinks that policy

means broad ideas that appeal to particular prejudices that are important to that voter.

[bluewater]

15. That's a very disparaging thing to say about the voters.

And borders on "mind reading", hmm?

[Thekaspervote]

17. I agree completely with mineralman. You may think it disparaging, most are not informed at all

Far from mind reading, it’s a simple truth

[ancianita]

20. Why does it have to be about mind reading. Why can't it be about the long term experience of

voter opinion and exit polls.

Why can't the claim be fact-based. Do you have facts that prove voters vote by policy not based on prejudice and/or self interest?

[MineralMan]

23. Let me ask you this: Who is the current President of the United States?

I rest my case. History is what my opinion is based on, not "mind reading."

Further, I'm in the marketing business. My current specialty is neuromarketing. Look it up.

[bluewater]

30. So issues like the economy weren't a factor? Just prejudices?

You said:

"The average non-wonk voter thinks that policy means broad ideas that appeal to particular prejudices that are important to that voter."

Honestly, not a good look.

Voters, average voters, are motivated by more than "broad ideas that appeal to particular prejudices". They are motivated by their personal economic situation, they are motivated by their health care concerns. Trump LIED to those voters about these issues, it's not that the issues didn't matter to the average voters.

Again, disparaging and underestimating the average voter is not a good plan to win in 2020.

[Thekaspervote]

36. Indeed!

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, Trump lied to the voters about that, and everything else.

And they ate it up. I didn't say that lying was not a successful strategy. It has been an excellent strategy, again and again.

[ancianita]

19. Yes. In that lies our problem. I want a lot of policy that I don't personally benefit from, but as

you've rightly pointed out to DU, most people aren't like us. And even most Democrats aren't like us. I've always known that.

I want a president who's way smarter and more experienced than I. And though I know that I'm right to want Inslee, that as the #1 state's executive, he's both smarter than I and more experienced than most of our candidates, I think that people beyond DU want Biden, who's got national governing experience, Inslee's House terms notwithstanding.

Voters, in my view, just don't vote for the right reasons, just their personal reasons. And so the personality/policy conflation is the basis of their votes.

As you point out about cars, most buying decisions, small or big ticket, are mostly emotional. It's that ten percent 'thought' that I worry about. It's the 90% emotion that we've been dealing with for the last three years. AND all the sunk cost fallacy that makes the politics of spite and prejudice double down in support of their personality cult's leader.

If we in DU see primaries as thinking with our hearts and general elections as voting with our heads, it's too hard for most voters to do anything but "follow" the party package. When they don't, they 'think' it's because their 10% thought (using MM's metric just for the sake of argument) knows 'better' than the party, which has too often resulted in net loss for the country.

Right now, we're distracted by social politics while the machinery of minority rule solidifies its structures to keep itself in power indefinitely. I'm weary about that.

I'm weary of the corruption that Elizabeth Warren rightly frames her campaign around, and do want to see her plans implemented. I do want a big voter turnout, and do see, as well, that Biden could be persuaded to implement her plans, since his policy evolves with the times.

Law enforcement at the highest levels of government has to be shown, or voters will no longer care about policy, but "strong man" rule. Worst case, if this becomes a nation of men and not of laws, I'm looking to leave the political process altogether. My long game fight is running low.

[MineralMan]

22. It's complicated, isn't it?

I don't know the answers. I do know that we have an ignorant, tyrannical dolt in the White House. That he could get there is absolutely frightening, but he did. Making sure he is gone after the 2020 election is my highest and only priority right now.

[ancianita]

25. Yes. But we here make it worse with infighting. So I say, let the country look over our policies

and let's trust the larger decision making voter body to choose rightly.

Decision making research shows that the larger the body of decision makers, the longer it takes to make the decision, but once made, the decision implements more solidly and longer than when made any other way.

Kinda like the African proverb that says, "If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together."

[MineralMan]

29. We have to present a unified vision, not a fragmented, disputed one.

All of our candidates want to make the world more progressive. All of them. Let's start there and not stray from that path too far or get distracted by things along the way.

[ancianita]

33. Fair enough. We only dispute the likelihood of their getting to the presidency by the larger voting

body. Thus, all the polling issues we pay attention to right now, so far out from the primary vote dates.

I say they're ALL right.

It's really up to the nation to decide who should get their vote instead of Trump.

[Thekaspervote]

37. Yes we do!! And anyone who thinks the repukes are not reading what we write...wrong

[Chitown Kev]

6. Both

it's never a 50-50 proportion, though...and it is very hard to vote for someone that is unlikable

[MineralMan]

9. Kamala Harris has likability going for her - in a big way, actually.

Her launch speech caught my attention immediately for that reason. I cannot imagine a more winning ticket than a Biden/Harris ticket, to tell you the truth. I hope those two can make nice with each other. I truly do. I think Harris can become President, but needs a bit more seasoning before serving.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Chitown Kev]

16. and let's not underestimate this...

Kamala Harris is rather easy on the eyes...a friend of mine pointed out that all over the Midwest you see nightly local news anchor teams featuring a black woman and a white man...I would not underestimate Harris' appeal to, say, GenX suburban white men living in the Midwest...for shallow reasons

[MineralMan]

18. Hmm...I really tend to ignore that in terms of politics.

I know it plays some role, but I think it's more just an appealing appearance that has nothing to do with sexual attraction.

After all, Trump is in the White House, right? I mean, look at him!

[ancianita]

28. And for that very fact alone I say we must lower the voting age to 12, the age that kids can follow

a lawyer's argument with a jury, as studies have shown.

Twelve year olds can't possibly vote for any stupider reasons that adults do now, particularly when looks play a part.

Have children vote, and watch the whole legal structure around schools, women and families change.

[Thekaspervote]

38. Agree here's another fact. Newspapers most, write for the level of a 6th grader..so yeah about 12

[MineralMan]

43. Yes, they do, and they write to that level because research shows them

that that level is the best understood by the most people. However, newspapers are slowly dying, because most people today hate to read. Nevertheless, the publishers continue to write to that reading level, frustrating its actual readers today.

Since I write website content for a living, I have to adjust the reading level to match the target audience. I say target audience, because my clients can tell me who buys their products or services. I can write to any reading level, as long as I know which level I need to address. I regularly test that on actual content, and am usually within half a year of the desired level in my first draft. Experience.

Campaigns have to do the same thing. If they know the medium, they can know the reading and comprehension level. Smart campaigns adjust their message to suit.

[Chitown Kev]

46. Well...maybe the same applied to Obama...and Clinton...

and JFK?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. The...

The latter

[MineralMan]

13. That's what history should have taught us.

If we would learn that, we'd be better able to control our own destiny, I think. We keep forgetting it, though.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. "Policy" sometimes turns out to be how many angels are dancing on

the head of a particular candidate's pin. All of the candidates favor certain broad policies and goals as advocated by the Democratic party: Universal health care, women's reproductive rights, plans to deal with climate change, tax laws that don't unfairly favor the wealthy, regulation of the financial sector, a living wage for everyone, affordable higher education, humane and manageable immigration, care for the environment, enforcement of civil rights laws, support for LGBT and minority rights, support for NATO and other international alliances, protecting our elections, etc. But there are differences among the candidates as to how these broad goals should be accomplished.

As a result it is easy to get so tangled up in arguments over the means that sometimes we forget about the end. For example, should we have Medicare for All or improvements to the ACA that include both private insurance and a public option? How do we do it? What will it cost? How will it be paid for? How long will it take? And in trying to answer these questions, all of which of course are completely legitimate, we can lose sight of the fact that the plans and their particulars are aspirational only - because any plan will have to make it through Congress, where the process has been compared to the making of sausage. A candidate's proposals tell us a lot about his/her political philosophy but we have to remember that, as Mick Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that concentrating exclusively on policy (sometimes ad nauseam) ignores the fact that most voters don't care about how we get there as long as we have some reasonable chance to get there. Promising something like Medicare for All doesn't mean we'll ever get it; it means only that the candidate who promises it has a political philosophy that supports such a system. That's important to know, of course, but political philosophies don't win elections. When you're dealing with an enormous electorate with a broad range of desires, goals and attitudes it will come down to popularity - or charisma or personality if that's what you want to call it.

A campaign is a marketing event. An election is closing the sale. Trump won 2016 on the basis of his (fake) reputation as a successful businessman plus heavy doses of bullshit. He had no definable, detailed policies at all, only vague promises that appealed to the desires and fears of a certain segment of the electorate. Assisted by the Russians and a number of other things that went sideways for Clinton, it was enough for him to win the electoral college. The point is that wonkery only goes so far. I think it's great that Warren, for example, has worked out her plans and can explain exactly what they are and what they will cost. This tells me a whole lot about how she thinks. But for her to actually win the election she will have to engage and excite voters, not only about her plans but about herself. This goes equally for all of them, of course. It's all about closing the sale. Policy details take a back seat in general elections, which is why I'm not getting all wrapped around the axles about the details. Any candidate who supports the general principles of the party and can sell him/herself to voters well enough to beat Trump has my support. In the end that's all that matters.

[MineralMan]

24. Very well said!

[peggysue2]

21. Unfortunately, I think this is largely true

Personality and/or likability rules the day. I've fought this notion for a long time because I'm much more comfortable with personality + policy being the secret sauce. But when you talk to voters, even family members, it boils down to personality traits colored by the emotion a candidate evokes in the larger electorate. Is said candidate someone you'd like to have a beer with? for instance. A stupid yardstick but it conjures up the question: is said candidate a regular Joe or Jane? Do they feel my pain? Do they understand what it's like to live my life? With Trump, I think, the main attraction was anger--can he stick it to the libtards, make them cry? Because underlying that anger was/is fear: things are changing too fast and I'm being left in the dust.

Marketing the message is something Democrats need to do better. There was a huge sea change when TV was added to the election mix. You look at those old clips of the Nixon vs JFK debates and you realize how dramatic the visuals were: Nixon scowling, sweating with his five o'clock shadow vs the cool, affable, perfectly-groomed Kennedy. All surface stuff but it had a huge effect.

With social media we have additional challenges of selling the message and insisting on factual material vs the fiction the GOP peddles. Personality and retail politics is a counter measure: can I trust this person to follow through, can he/she take it to Trump and can he/she effectively sell and implement the Democratic brand? Because at the finish line, Winning is Everything. All of our candidates share the same policy goals though they may differ on how to get there.

The candidate who can best market the product through the force of their personality is the one who will win.

[MineralMan]

26. Before you can market the message, you must make sure it is marketable.

We tend, as Democrats, to forget the marketability side of the equation. Sometimes, we're trying to sell an Edsel to people who just see it as an ugly sort of car they don't care for.

You can only market a product or idea that appeals to your marketplace. So, first, you have to come up with something appealing.

[peggysue2]

35. That's absolutely true, MM

Universal healthcare is a popular product, tops the list of issues the larger electorate responds to as they did in 2018. Gun control, climate change, immigration solutions are all at the top of those polling lists. These are all Democratic goals/issues. Of course, the intensity of response is often linked to what region you're working.

Healthcare is probably the issue/product with the widest appeal because it touches everyone. Republicans do not have an answer to healthcare other than repealing and offering less. That, I think, plays to our advantage. Then there's the old but effective kitchen table issues, the bread and butter approach. Climate change should be a top issue, right there with healthcare. But I fear the GOP's propaganda has lessened the wider electorate's interest, even though its a global existential threat. Climate issues are going to catch up to us, one way or the other. The current stats are terrifying.

Not going to be easy. It will require marketing skill and an appealing personality to sell the programs without coming off as a scold. But it's something we must do.

[Amimnoch]

31. Sorry, but when it boils down to it, it's math and a map.

270.. 270.. 270.. 270..

Doesn’t matter who’s most popular, I’d think the elections that we’ve won the popular vote yet lost the election would be enough to have drilled in by now.

A few states are going to determine the next president.. again.

Personally, the ONLY polls I’m paying close attention to are the ones in those tan states.

I’m disappointed Beto isn’t doing better. To my core, I believe he’d have been our best hope. With Megar running for Senate, and Beto on the national ticket, I absolutely believe we could have flipped Texas this time around. Not only would a flip of Texas in 2020 get Cheetolini out of office, it also would give us a very critical +1 net gain in the senate toward getting the turtle out of there.

This is what that exact same map would look like with a texas flip.. Game over for them. Would it be a sure thing? No, but it definitely would put Texas in play as a realistic possibility.

[Thekaspervote]

39. That's right!

[AlexSFCA]

32. congress legislates not president

president doesn’t need all the policy details but just general idea of what he/she will support. Also, it is important for candidates to outline which executive orders they plan to execute as priority. Mayor Pete totally gets it. Warren needs to step up her game and start paying more attention to charisma not just endless policy details. Obama didn’t have the level of detail that Warren, BS and Clinton had. Biden is absolutely on the right track for general election but he needs to get dems support first. Overall, his strategy is the best out of all - campaign like it’s a general election because the ONLY criterion that will matter to primary voters is likelihood to beat trump. What better way to demonstrate it as to campaign like it’s a general election already. ALL Americans know who Biden is, we don’t need more information. But if Biden wins the nomination, having someone like Warren could be a huge asset for people who care about nitty gritty details. They would complement and balance each other quite nicely. Harris on the ticket may not add much as Biden already got black voters support, she may not bring any additional value and could be reserved for AG position that she is born to do.

[BeckyDem]

44. Great policies make a candidate popular.

[MineralMan]

45. Not necessarily. What polices of Trump's are good?

Lying about policies made Trump popular. It's an odd paradox, really.

[ancianita]

48. It's a mass cognitive deficiency, as I see it. Today's Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows it.

shows some attempt at nuanced judgment about Trump, but doesn't seem to affect his job approval rating.

47% of Americans say Trump deserves most of the credit for the economy,
27% say he should get "only some" credit,
20% say he deserves "hardly any" and
4% say he deserves none.

47% of Americans like how Trump handles immigration,
38% approve of the job he's done on health care,
32% approve of his handling of the abortion issue and
29% say he is doing a good job of addressing climate change.

Trump’s handling of key issues like health care, gun violence, abortion, and climate change is especially unpopular.

Yet,

44% = Trump's highest job approval rating so far.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/07/trump-approval-rating-hits-new-high/1668458001/

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/07/poll-trump-climate-change-unpopular/?fbclid=IwAR1R4L_zrnLwOXaxF21jomsgy7Vk2eBvolrPwmaRXnpnpDV34bp7ZQyApJ0

We get two different interpretations of the same raw numbers. One for one audience, one for another.

To me there's no paradox. It's personality conflated with policy.
Actually, it's bad personality conflated with no policy from Americans who don't read or think like we do here.

Guess what. Trump's people are paying attention to the party divide about environment, so he's going to make a brief (as if he's anything but, as if we could get his presidency to be anything but) policy statement on climate change tomorrow. What bullshit we're in for.

"Paradox" is a word reserved for oppositional situations that can't be fixed. This can.

[ancianita]

54. Huh?

Where did I once "make fun." Quote me. Calling attitudes stupid is common around here. As for me, I take the situation we're in, and that they want to keep us in, seriously. It's not as if the Democrats haven't been trying to "address their concerns at least a little bit" since Obama first took office.

You can't just come out of nowhere with that. Because you single out immigration doesn't mean they do, either.

Perhaps you think those polled, who are serious about immigration as a policy, would consider any Democratic plans for humanitarian methods that would clear more immigrants more efficiently, with less corporate subcontracting to handle the load.

Our tax money can buy any methods of tightening immigration. One party's method is a disaster of its own making. The other has plans and methods to fix that. If 53% don't approve of how Trump handles immigration, that can just as easily be credited with his opponents' winning stand on the issue.

There are plans Beto has proposed that, from what I understand, reference their issues. Castro and Warren, from what I've read here, want to improve immigration integration but pretty much would be seen by these voters as allowing open borders.

These are not polls of Republicans, or about American distrust of any Democratic solutions. They're not about which policy is THE issue for "many." The polls ask Americans about Trump's handling various areas and their overall approval.

If you want to argue about what my post says, stick to what I actually say, not what you think I mean. Or at least ask me what I mean.

I'm not talking about any one issue as stupid. I'm saying that since there's no breakdown of party affiliation in the polls, the only point to be made is their weird incongruity betwen the low percentages he gets on specific policy issues and his highest approval rating ever. The only sense to make of it is that some sunk fallacy illogic holds polled republicans to rate him higher.

In the context of this thread, I'm talking about a commonly held opinion around here about how only a personality like Trump's can be a stand-in for the "success" of their world views staying in control of the country. Personality as policy.

If you think that 47% can be talked to, persuaded by Democrats, or even convinced to vote Democratic in 2020, by all means, tell us and the candidates how.

Maybe in another thread, since it would derail this one.

[marylandblue]

55. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you personally made fun of anyone.

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2019, 06:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I was giving my interpretation of a particular result in the data you cited more than responding to your actual words.

I'm essentially saying Democrats should move right on immigration. It's not a popular position, so I am pre-emptively defensive about it.

I apologize too for going so far afield from your post and diverting. I'll delete my post and shut up now.

[ancianita]

58. It's fine. I just wanted to address your concern and re-explain my post, is all. No apology needed.

[BeckyDem]

49. The candidates we have are pushing policies that are already popular.

I don't give a damn about Trump, his win was complicated by more than a few reasons.

Warren is gaining popularity because of her political platform, her policies are making her popular.

[Gothmog]

47. Joe Biden Is The Only Democrat With A Clear Advantage Over Trump In New Poll

Link to tweet

[marylandblue]

50. It's not an either or with policy or personality and it's not a one size fits all approach.

If it's marketing you are talking about, you probably also realize that most people already know what they want in a car before they even start shopping. Likewise, about 80% of people already know who they are voting for in the general election, or have already decided not to vote. Campaigns are about persuading the remaining 20% who sway in the wind, this way and that with each election.

Candidates are leaders of the 80% trying to read the minds of the other 20%. They are persuaded by a package. Some personality, some strategy, some policy, some emotion, some tapping into the zeitgeist. If we really knew for sure what would work, everyone would do the same thing every time. But they don't.

We are all so focused on lies Trump told, we are missing the truth he proclaimed. The system is corrupt, nobody gives a shit about the little people, and he should know because he is the most corrupt don't-give-a-shit asshole of them all.

He was absolutely right about that. But so many of us who already know how we will vote don't want to hear it. He wasn't talking to us anyway.

[customerserviceguy]

53. I'd have to say personality

Most voters have little expectation of every tittle and jot of a candidate's policies to be enacted, they know that the meat grinder of Congress has to go through it first. But, they're looking for someone who is at least willing to push in the direction they want to go.

[beachbum bob]

56. anger wins

[CTyankee]

57. We absolutely MUST have an Electoral College strategy this time.

That boils down to who can win enough states to win the EC. Until we can get rid of this monstrosity and have a Presidential election based on popular vote alone, we are going to have another disaster like 2016 without the EC.

[Gothmog]

59. Here is some great polling

Link to tweet

[Blue_true]

60. For democrats, policy with a mannerism where the candidate interact with people.

Bill Clinton looking a person in the eye and earnestly saying "I feel your pain", or President Obama hugging a person that was in emotional pain.

For republicans it is about lying and creating fear.

[myohmy2]

61. in 2020...

...IMO, it will be mostly popularity...

...a popularity referendum on our fake president...with the most fake presidential issues ever...

...blue smoke and mirrors abound...we'll not vote our self-interest any other way...

...be happy...MAGA MAGA

...