Reply #23: Marketing or messaging...semantics. [View All]

[Are_grits_groceries]

I am just pointing out how I think campaigns are run now. I'm cynical about the process, but I believe this is how it works. I also don't think this is so different from the past. The methods are more sophisticated now.

Call it marketing or whatever you want. Candidates should have basics that can reach the public. Why is it wrong to prepare something simple that will be effective and reflect the candidate?

The problem lies in misrepresenting what they really stand for in their basic symbols, slogans, and positions. People don't question the message enough. Candidates do need something simple that people can remember. They can't win ONLY on policy statements or more detailed info because the details won't stick. Even when they are making speeches, they are supporting their basic themes.

Hillary is another example of muddling. She was all over the map in responding to the Obama campaign. She changed all the time trying to find some effective way to disparrage him.

She might have been better served to find a strong and basic method to present herself first. That should have been pushed into the public's minds. Then she would have had an anchor about herself when she did move to a message to attack him.