What makes good branding in politics? More or less policy detail?

You're touching on a core tension in political strategy: the balance between detailed policy and broad branding. Here's a breakdown of the points you raised and some considerations:

• Branding and Name Recognition:
  
  • You're right that these are crucial. They create an immediate connection with voters.
    
  • A strong brand can simplify complex issues and create a sense of identity.
    
  • Name recognition provides a baseline level of familiarity, which can be a significant advantage.
    
• Policy Details vs. Platitudes:
  
  • Platitudes:
    
    • They can resonate with a wider audience by appealing to shared values and emotions.
      
    • They allow voters to project their own interpretations.
      
    • However, they can also leave voters feeling uninformed or misled.
      
  • Policy Details:
    
    • They can demonstrate competence and provide a clear vision.
      
    • They can attract voters who are deeply engaged with specific issues.
      
    • However, they can also alienate voters who don't understand or disagree with the details.
      
    • Too many details can lead to a candidate being labeled as an "elitist" or "out of touch".
      
• The "Average Voter":
  
  • It's true that voter attention spans can be limited, and complex policy discussions can be difficult to follow.
    
  • Effective political communication often involves simplifying complex issues into easily digestible messages.
    
• Ambiguity:
  
  • As you stated, a degree of ambiguity can allow voters to project their own beliefs onto a candidate. This can broaden appeal.
    
  • However, excessive ambiguity can lead to a lack of trust and accusations of dishonesty.
    
• Winning Elections:
  
  • The optimal strategy likely lies in a balance between branding and policy.
    
  • A strong brand can create initial appeal, while carefully selected policy positions can solidify support among key demographics.
    
  • It is also important to remember that different demographics respond to different messaging. Some groups want heavy policy details, while others do not.
    
  • Modern campaigns also have to contend with social media, and how to create viral content that is on brand, and easy to understand.
    

In essence, successful politicians often craft a compelling narrative that resonates with a broad audience, while also offering enough substance to satisfy key constituencies.1

MAGA appeals to the retrograde ideals of an ageing population and paranoid isolationists.

The party that claims to speak for the future is too busy preserving and conserving the comfort of the past. When is the last time you ever heard of a Democrat reforming anything? Not just adding to government bloat, but actually fixing the problems? The only thing they care about progressing is control and power. That's why their approval is deservedly in the gutter.

The Democrats worship the old at the expense of the young, racking up national debt that they happily pass onto to the younger generation as an unreasonable burden.

What do republicans rack up deficits for? Oh yeah, tax cuts for corporations and the rich.

If the Trump tax cuts were really just for the rich, then why did the Democrats keep them? They had full control in 2021 White House, Senate, and House.

The tax cuts lowered rates for almost everyone, expanded the standard deduction, boosted child tax credits, and gave middle-class families more take-home pay. Repealing them would’ve meant raising taxes on the very people Democrats pretend to fight for, and they knew it.

as evidenced by the record fundraising Democrats got from the billionaire class

In 2021 nothing would have passed through Congress without the approval of Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema. You can call that full control of you want to, but it just isn't so.

2021 was also right in the aftermath of COVID when millions of Americans were still out of work and global inflation was in the process of spiking. Not exactly the time to raise people's taxes.

83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So you can sit here and pretend this was a bill for the middle class all you want, the reality is that's just laughable.

Democrats had full control many times over the past couple of decades and basically fucked everyone over by lying and not keeping promises.

83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So you can sit here and pretend this was a bill for the middle class all you want, the reality is that's just laughable.

Just as laughable as [Manchin and Sinema] choosing to keep it

...while passing all sorts of bullshit laws to crash the economy. 

Let me guess, the economy was a complete and total trainwreck under Biden, but now that Trump is in office everything is great!?

The last time democrats succeeded in raising taxes on the wealthy was in 2013 when they raised the top rate from 35% to 39.6%. 

Let me guess, the economy was a complete and total trainwreck under Biden, but now that Trump is in office everything is great!?

I wouldn't say a 9% spike in the inflation rate was a trainwreck, but it definitely was an avoidable self-inflicted wound that moved the economy in the wrong direction.

Every election they talk about “making the wealthy pay their fair share,” and yet the top rate keeps bouncing between 35% and 39.6%, like a political prop. Meanwhile, the actual billionaires, the ones swimming in capital gains, crony pass-through income, and trust fund loopholes keep skating by untouched.

So yeah, so much for “progress.” Same rate, same rhetoric, same broken promises, same excuses from the glass of water voter base. If taxing the rich was really their priority, they’ve had plenty of chances to prove it.

You're like a child who thinks government is essentially the Borg

Again, government doesn't work the way you are pretending it works