I could test this in a drinking game format, but I fear I’d end up absolutely wasted with a lot of - drink when we say what we aren’t for.
It is my fantasy that we have a Dem convention where we only ever say what we're for and what we'll do. Mostly, because this is what's proven to mobilize and persuade. But also because nothing would anger those we oppose more than us rendering them not even worth naming.
-
-
-
Dangerous!
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Actually, pollster
@RachelBitecofer has documented that negative partisanship is a powerful motivator for voters. -
Super familiar with this rich work! Negative partisanship is absolutely where many *already engaged & decided* voters are. But for disaffected potential voters - negative messaging is measurably repellent. For fence sitters it can re-entrench views by activating defensiveness
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
[the other day, I was arguing the other side of this, however - ] reading this, am thinking of • "Stop Apartheid!" • "Abolish slavery!" What if the challenge = creatively focus on the story/image of both problem & solution without letting the problem define the terms?
-
End apartheid is an interesting counter. I don’t think ending enslavement happened as a persuasion campaign in US (rather it was a war.) In Britain quite famously framed in the positive & in moral terms. Civil rights similarly - freedom, equality, Dream not stop/don’t/not
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.