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

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 9
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,215
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
They've lost the policy in politics as I like to say

But how do you win elections? A lot of it is branding and name recognition. Trump had both, that's why he won twice

Are more or less policy details better for branding? 

None of us like it but branding with platitudes is half the battle. The average person is pretty stupid and half of people are even stupider. That's just right off rip. There's a time and place for substance but I'm not convinced being heavy on that is what wins elections. Devilish details can alienate more people than it helps attract. Gotta be ambiguous enough to let people project their own ideals onto you
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,173
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
MAGA appeals to the retrograde ideals of an ageing population and paranoid isolationists.

So in this respect Trump branded well.
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,845
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
MAGA won the Gen z vote
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,667
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Did Trump win on policy?
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,667
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Policy vision is what winners run on. Policy details are what the losers use as ammunition.

What was the policy vision for Democrats?

Well first it was "hope and change"

Then it was "expanded rights for lgbtq and undocumented"

People rejected all those visions once they found out the true cost of spending billions of dollars on government red tape and the true cost of destroying title 9 for women and the true cost of a declining American wage.

And what's the vision for Democrats today? Same as yesterday.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,667
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Democrats appeal to the old and often childless populations. Malthusians.
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,845
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Isn't it more ethical to have substance and just lose than branding and platitudes to win?


#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,845
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
You didn't ask what's more ethical though. The only politician I can think of who has these chance to win the presidency who leaned more on substance was Ross Perot but he intentionally lost at the end for some reason. Candidates who do make substantive arguments do poorly. You can watch replays of Ron Paul in the Republican debates and see he is talking at a higher level than everyone else but voters just don't click with him. 

I would say Hillary basically got as far as she did due to name recognition and she didn't talk down to voters as much as most politicians which may have hurt her. 

I think to be ethical you want simple true statements that can be expanded to complex thoughts to make everyone happy. 

You probably don't think much of trump but you can clearly see the simple message there but it also can appeal to smarter people because there is a rabbit hole a deeper well that is being drawn from. 

For the plebs you hear build the wall and let Mexico pay for it. To those actually digging into the policy it'sincreased border securrity and trade policies that recoup the expenses of the project .

27 days later

Topic's author
#9
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,215
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
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