2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

George H W Bush, though?

Ah, conceded.  But your original point, that one slogan only works for one candidate, is still refuted.

[Sheilbh]

That wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.

As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.

[crazy canuck]

I think parliamentary politicians might face a bigger challenge. In our system it is absolutely the case that you can become President or Senator or even Governor and really have only very limited ability to actually advance your agenda because of all the checks and balances and so forth. So you come back saying "hey return me to office and we can continue to chip away towards our political goals."

But for people who basically have carte blanche legislatively and in an executive sense like a Parliamentary politician I have a hard time imagining how they can promise that they can get it done if given just a few more years. You almost have to say "protect the status quo from our horrible opponents!" don't you?

Yes, exactly.  Barbarians at the gates is cry of the governing party and its time for a change is the chant of the opposition.

[Razgovory]

I am reminded of an old Greek fable.  Down with King Log, Bring in King Stork!

[Admiral Yi]

That wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.

As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.

In all my discussions with various folks about elections, I can't recall a single mention of the campaign slogan as a factor in their voting preference.

[crazy canuck]

That wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.

As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.

In all my discussions with various folks about elections, I can't recall a single mention of the campaign slogan as a factor in their voting preference.

I guess you didn't have the opportunity to talk to anyone who attended an Obama event and screamed Yes We Can at the top of their lungs.

[Sheilbh]

Sure and most people don't think their behaviour is influenced by marketing. But also we lie to ourselves and each other about our political preferences and choices. Everyone wants to think well of themselves after all.

But again I think you want to distinguish between the slogan and the serious political argument (or least importantly, policy). That the slogan is sort of the after-thought.

My view is that an effective slogan is the result of really working out that argument - as I say, it's the distilled version. If you haven't worked out who you are, your argument and your strategy then you will not have an effective campaign slogan or core message (and will probably cycle through them a bit). They're not separate in my view, they're one and the same.

And I think there is a similar argument around brand identity and marketing in business. I'd argue the companies who take it seriously and think it's expressive rather than just shallow, frivolous bumpf tend to be the ones that we all know (and buy from).

[Josquius]

Rule #1 of marketing - there's no such thing as bad publicity.
I mean.
Obviously there is.
But the basic goal of marketing is not to convince someone who wasn't interested in a thing that it's actually the thing for them.
The goal is far more to remind people that it's a thing that exists.
A lot of tv adverts make a lot more sense when you remember this.

It also highlights a lot of trumps success.

[Admiral Yi]

Sure and most people don't think their behaviour is influenced by marketing. But also we lie to ourselves and each other about our political preferences and choices. Everyone wants to think well of themselves after all.

But again I think you want to distinguish between the slogan and the serious political argument (or least importantly, policy). That the slogan is sort of the after-thought.

My view is that an effective slogan is the result of really working out that argument - as I say, it's the distilled version. If you haven't worked out who you are, your argument and your strategy then you will not have an effective campaign slogan or core message (and will probably cycle through them a bit). They're not separate in my view, they're one and the same.

And I think there is a similar argument around brand identity and marketing in business. I'd argue the companies who take it seriously and think it's expressive rather than just shallow, frivolous bumpf tend to be the ones that we all know (and buy from).

Let me see if I've got it.  You want a catchy jingle that makes people feel good about themselves *and* distills down Kamala's political message, which is basically if Trump gets reelected we're all fucked, but you don't know what that jingle is, but you're sure the one they're using now is no good.

Is that it?

[Sheilbh]

Sure - I don't know where that's from. To be honest I thought we'd stopped talking about Harris specifically.

My initial point was that I think the closing argument in the debate is pre-scripted. I think it was an odd choice to go with Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders back us and they should have focused more on the positive argument for Harris. You then asked about slogans - and I don't think there's a difference between slogans and the positive argument, just word count.

My view is that the negative case against Trump is strong, well-known and I think everyone who finds that convincing (as I do) is already bought in. It needs to be joined to a positive case for Harris. I think Clinton was bad at that, Biden was good and I'm not convinced by Harris.

[Admiral Yi]

The positive case for Harris is $6,000 for your first child.  She can speak English.  She has nice hair.

[Josquius]

🎵🎶Kamaaaalaaa Harrrris🎵🎶for when you don't wanna vote for a fucking nazi🎵🎶

[crazy canuck]

 

[crazy canuck]

I think parliamentary politicians might face a bigger challenge. In our system it is absolutely the case that you can become President or Senator or even Governor and really have only very limited ability to actually advance your agenda because of all the checks and balances and so forth. So you come back saying "hey return me to office and we can continue to chip away towards our political goals."

But for people who basically have carte blanche legislatively and in an executive sense like a Parliamentary politician I have a hard time imagining how they can promise that they can get it done if given just a few more years. You almost have to say "protect the status quo from our horrible opponents!" don't you?

Yes, exactly.  Barbarians at the gates is cry of the governing party and its time for a change is the chant of the opposition.

Although this morning I have heard a B.C. NDP MLA and two Federal MPs say that they have heard the message "loud and clear that change is needed".

So governing parties also try to claim they represent change too.

[Admiral Yi]

Legal Eagle says Elon's lottery is illegal because you can not pay someone to *register* to vote.  That I did not know.