You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can we just see the end of endorsements forever? Nobody gives a sh*t. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-19-10 12:12 AM
Original message
Can we just see the end of endorsements forever? Nobody gives a sh*t.
Advertisements [?]
The whole idea that I'm going to vote for someone based on what someone higher up than them says is just outmoded. I could see voting on someone's word if they knew the candidate they were endorsing personally AND there were no other good sources of information for me to base my decision upon.

But the idea that it's credible at all that because Obama supported Specter that he was the better candidate --that's ridiculous. I think the last endorsement that mattered was Ted Kennedy's of Barack Obama --but not so much to change anybody's mind, but to send the signal that his was a serious campaign.

I'm not criticizing Obama for supporting Specter...whatever deal they made turned Specter into a more reliable Democrat in 2009/2010 than he ever was as a Republican. But it just rings hollow. Who needs the help to decide which candidate is better? I don't think anybody. And when both candidates are perfectly acceptable politically, are both comparably strong electorally (as both Sestak and Specter would have been)...what's the point of an endorsement? Nothing all that convincing if you ask me.

In terms of the "machine", there is clearly value in the big time endorsement, as it opens checkbooks, but even that isn't what it used to be and it's not going to be even what it is now. Campaigns need money, but the money advantage created by endorsements is never significant enough if it makes a difference. Sestak had the money he needed and the extra money Specter raised from the endorsements wasn't enough to change that.

And fewer and fewer voters are responding to endorsements...for the same reason fewer of them are responding to advertising in general. Nobody thinks these things are very genuine, or that they are done without alterior motive. In the age of Yelp and Amazon reviews, when people see an endorsement, they often think of that Amazon review..."why would a consumer of that product refer to it as 'new and improved'?" and dismiss everything else because it doesn't seem objective.

To my candidates: stop endorsing people. Want to make something viral? Tell us to make up our own minds...now that might just be the most convincing thing you can endorse.

:D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC