Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat  Like the concept of change?  |
Yes, "change."
The term "change" has been studied a lot and still is. "Change" resonates, statistically.
In 1992, Clinton and Perot used "Change." It works. But it's not real. It's fake. But....as long as the term/slogan "change" is statistically effective, it will be used.
And in reality, there won't be any real change IMO. In the future, a GOP candidate may may use the slogan "change" if the polling is consistent with positive perceptions from the American public.
MM: Quote:
|
I also have met Pat Caddell
|
Texpat: Quote:
|
I'm impressed beyond words.
|
No reason to be impressed. I noted him because he make a major breakthrough in using polling for the masses. I didn't like the guy that much in our brief visit. But....the point is....he was a pollster who revolutionized polling. He used polling, and polling is a science when it is done correctly. Note: it has to be done honestly and correctly.
Quote:
|
Essentially what you're saying is the majority of all voters are low-info and lesser educated. But your personal bias can't help making the connection between the patroiotic and less educated.
|
Not true. Let me clarify.
Yes, the majority of "almost all" voter are low-info voters - but this means voters with "education." "Education," meaning they have a certified BA/BS at the least.
"Low-info voters" include high school grads, and those with BA/BS degress and even MA/MS degrees.
"Low-info" just means they follow politics only 1. casually, but 2. they have high voter turnouts at the polls.
Presidential campaigns always have been, and still are now, targeted towards the low-info voter.
And it always will be.
You can go back in history.