Do our elections come down to who packages/markets their candidate

[mzmolly]

more effectively?

After canvassing today, I think it might be more important than I had previously considered.

Today I ran into more Bush supporters then I cared to, ;) and after realizing that people who said they were supporting Bush were actually human (frankly, it's been quite easy for me to demonize Bush supporters in the past) I have a bit of a different perspective then I had just yesterday.

Unfortunately as we all know, George Bush the candidate for President is actually an illusion - he's not a REAL candidate with anything REAL to offer the American public. He's a corporate tool who's marketing team has convinced the "consumer driven/commerical driven" public that he is a fatherly figure, with strong convictions who's looking out for "Americans." He's a man who does the right thing, even when it's unpopular. :eyes:

George Bush is an actor, with a script ... and aMerikunz who "follow" him are voting for the illusion that his marketing people have created. *Edwards eluded to this on the tonight show when he mentioned Bush's "bulge" being a battery. ;)

In a nutshell, I really think R's do a better job of "packaging" then we do. We approach things from an issue based perspective when many Americans aren't terribly interested in taking the time to "study" the issues and educate themselves. All they know is that we both condemn the other side and claim to be stronger on education/terrorism/health care etc...

Realistically speaking, should this race even be close? NO. The reason it is, is because the R's have a darned good marketing strategy IMHO.

Seem this campaign just might come down to marketing instead of the issues? :(

[w13rd0]

1. Thinking hard...

...issues confusing...i choose the pretty box that says "NEW AND IMPROVED"...tell me what to think, what to buy...promise me more of "my money" then tell me how to spend it...(average murikan)

[mzmolly]

2. Indeed.

Ya know, some people take drugs today after seeing flashy commercials promoting X to solve X. Many consumers don't even bother to read the package insert, they simply look at the "shiny happy people" in the Viagra commercial and don't think about what the side effects might be.

[w4rma]

3. Republicans are downright awesome on PR. They are the absolute worst

on actual leadership, however. They do a fantastic job whining from the sidelines, but once in power, they make a total mess with their ill thought out and greedy aims.

[mzmolly]

7. They do make a mess, and Americans are generally none the wiser.

:( They also did a damn good job of destroying the Kerry image (which was actually a realistic portrayal of a war hero) with the SBV bullshit.

Roves strategy of attacking your opponent on his strenght's is brilliant. If we'd only learn before it's too late.

[bloom]

4. marketing and a cooperative media

They could never get away with what they get away with without the mass media support that they enjoy. To some extent - they play the media better. But I also think - for whatever reasons - CNN, etc. has been way too biased in their coverage.

[mzmolly]

5. Yes, it's a bad combo when the media allows the faux image of our "leader"

to prevail over the truth.

[sandnsea]

6. Yes

Part of marketing is repetition. That's why it's also important to stay on message, no matter what your personal opinion is. Do you think a salesman could sell anything if he told people everything that was wrong with his product and nothing more?

(That wasn't directed at you, just a little note)

[mzmolly]

8. I agree. They're excellent at staying on message "mind controll

techniques" were too busy actually disecting the issues, while they're tossing out handy little sound bites for America to regurgitate/embrace.

[sandnsea]

9. The NYT article

That's exactly what it said. They're busy making the world while we're analyzing what they're doing. A little more than the marketing of the candidate, but that's definitely part of what they're doing. Just marketing the candidate while we're trying to analyze what's wrong with their marketing. And they just swat any reality aside and keeping marching on, those armies of compassion, wohoo! I hate them, hate them, hate them.

If you haven't read that NYT article, take an aspirin, get the Pepto, and hang on to your hat. FREAKY!

[mzmolly]

13. I haven't read because I'm not registered.

:P

Sounds worthwhile though.

[sandnsea]

17. It's 10 pages

Yes, it's definitely worthwhile.

[Xenolith]

10. They also have better understanding and technique in manipulating metaphor

and framing arguments,according to George Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

snip

One of the most frequent uses of the nation as a person metaphor comes in the almost daily attempts to justify the war metaphorically as a "just war". The basic idea of a just war uses the nation as a person metaphor, plus two narratives that have the structure of classical fairy tales: the self-defense story and the rescue story.
In each story there is a hero, a crime, a victim, and a villain. In the self-defense story the hero and the victim are the same. In both stories the villain is inherently evil and irrational; The hero can't reason with the villain; he has to fight him and defeat or kill him. In both, the victim must be innocent and beyond reproach. In both, there is an initial crime by the villain, and the hero balances the moral books by defeating him. If all the parties are nation-persons, then self-defense and rescue stories become forms of a just war for the hero-nation.
In the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush tried out a self-defense story: Saddam was "threatening our oil lifeline." The American people didn't buy it. Then he found a winning story, a rescue story: the "rape" of Kuwait. It sold well, and is still the most popular account of that war.
In the Iraq War, George W. Bush is pushing different versions of the same two story types, and this explains a great deal of what is going on in the American press and in speeches by Bush and Powell. If they can show that Saddam Hussein equals Al Queda-that he is helping or harboring Al Queda-then they can make a case for the self-defense scenario, and hence for a just war. Or if weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed are found, the self-defense scenario can be justified in another way.

Snip

[mzmolly]

11. WOW! Do you have a link?

:wow: I knew they were out of touch, but I never likened it to a "disney type fantasy" that they perpetually create in order to justify anything. Amazing analysis!

I don't imagine you have a link if it's a book, but I thought I'd ask.

[Xenolith]

14. No link, taken from the book, but Lakoff works with the Rockridge Inst.

www.rockridgeinstitute.org

[mzmolly]

15. Thanks and WELCOME to DU!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

16. Found a link from your source. I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

This man makes so much sense. Many Democrats have said the same things, with far less eloquence. I look forward to reading his book.

"Conservatives have branded liberals, and the liberals let them get away with it: the "liberal elite," the "latte liberals," the "limousine liberals." The funny thing is that conservatives are the elite. The whole idea of conservative doctrine is that some people are better than others, that some people deserve more. To conservatives, if you're poor it's because you deserve it, you're not disciplined enough to get ahead. Conservative doctrine requires that there be an elite: the people who thrive in the free market have more money, and they should. Progressives say, "No, that's not fair. Maybe some should have more money, but no one should live in poverty. Everybody who works deserves to have a reasonable standard of living for their work." These are ideas that are progressive or liberal ideas, and progressives aren't getting them out there enough.

What progressives are promoting is not elite at all. Progressives ought to be talking about the conservative elite. They shouldn't be complaining about "tax cuts for the rich," they should be complaining about "tax cuts for the conservative elite," because that's who's getting them." :toast: to Mr. Lakoff!

This guy should be advising Kerry.



Edited to add this quote:

"A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely." ~ George Lakoff






:hi:

[Mr_Spock]

12. Yep, Repukes are easily swayed people who want a "daddy figure"

It's a shame how they aren't interested in the fact that Dumbya is the worst president in my lifetime.