Piece on the BBC just now about Trump was very instructive in general voting/poltiical theory. Interviewing residents in New York the responses were mainly along the lines of "who cares, they're all criminals" and "if he's getting things done, I don't care if he's a dick".
This is something that is often overlooked when people study the reasoning behind voter intentions and the general mentality of voters. Voters want results and they're prepared to overlook certain flaws in order to get those results.
This is difficult for many journalists and politicos to understand; that the public are pragmatic and a lot more savvy then they're given credit for. This in turn is instructive about Brexit and the attacks on Leave voters for example.
The public are smarter than commentators give them credit for. The whole "but you were lied to!!" argument presumes that the public simply take things presented to them by politicians at face value. It ignores the ability of the public to factor in their own experience.
Members of the public deal with shysters, chancers and bullshitters virtually every day of their lives. There's not a person alive in the UK or US beyond childhood that hasn't encountered and recognised someone as being not all that they seem on the surface.
This is one of the reasons why the "popularity contest" nature of politics is overblown. The public are more than aware that all politicians have skeletons in their cupboards and that all of them are putting on a front. It's a form of the wisdom of crowds phenomenon.
The response to the Trump revelations are also instructive in terms of peoples predisposition for siding with one candidate or another. Why aren't many voters bothered about Trumps flaws? Because they perceive the opponents flaws to be worse.
In the UK context, this is why many overlook Corbyn's issues with Hamas, the IRA etc. They simply see the Tories as being worse. You'll never convince hardliners either way. This is why negative campaigning very seldom works.
If you want to win the marginal voters you have to offer them something positive. They likely already dislike you or your opponent anyway (or both). Putting that aside, what positive things are you actually going to do for them?
In summary; the public are smarter than you think and they can smell bullshit a mile off. Don't underestimate their intelligence and don't patronise them, or you'll likely reap the whirlwind of your own sowing.
@threadreaderapp unroll
