Is Dem platform critical in electoral success (or is it pure marketing)

[NAO]

Some people say the Dems get beat because they are 'too centrist'.

Others contend that they need to move to the right on some issues.

Now I would personally like to see the Democratic Party re-establish itself as a very progressive, much more liberal party than what we have now.

But just for the sake of speculation...I wonder if the platform really matters as much as the marketing of the message. If the Democratic Party (more left, more right or dead on center) had a propaganda/education/marketing machine of equal or greater influence than the one on the right, would they win every time?

Before you answer, consider how truly awful Bush's platform is, and the extent of support he received.

Now when I say "marketing machine" I'm not talking about just TV ads during an election year, I'm talking about think tanks, eloquent pundits, cleverly framed messages - the whole nine yards.

I have this sense (and it comes from years of experience in sales) that Americans do NOT buy the better product, they buy the product which is MARKETED better. Actual quality, features, price, and appropriateness to their needs are secondary to the effectiveness of the advertising. OK, that's pretty cynical when applied to electoral politics, but hey, I've been pretty cynical since we've moved into a post 11/2 world.

[moggie12]

1. I completely agree with you

Marketing is everything these days. The Republicans are VERY GOOD at this and we stink. It's like we're in another decade: Haven't adjusted to 24/7 news cycle, or the need to frame a "story" about the candidates, or how to do counter-intuitive things to dispel negative "liberal" image, etc. "Platforms" will always exist I suppose, but Dems need an easy-to-grasp "Ten Point" plan consisting of 10 specific items we promise to do.

I read something recently (can't remember where) that said Dems are losing because we have old-style campaign consultants that focus on issues whereas the Republicans have business/advertising people. With your marketing experience, you would do a better job than our current guys!

[Nimrod]

2. I agree, but disagree with the term "marketing"

It's not marketing in my mind - it's catalyzation of hatred. All that was said during the entire revolting year 2004 was "Vote for me, the other guy sucks ass".

Actually, I take that back, there was another overlying theme. It was the theme of "You're all alone". You think abortion is a necessary medical procedure and a woman's right? "You're all alone, you murderer, everyone else thinks butchering babies for Satan should be illegal". You think gays should be allowed to marry? "You're all alone, you sicko faggot, everyone ELSE thinks they should be gunned down in the street."

So on one hand you've got the easily-led sheep being spoon fed messages of hate and threat, and on the other you've got open-thinkers being convinced there's not enough of them to make a difference.

Marketing is selling something - displaying the positive aspects of a particular choice (regardless of how much of a lie it might be). All the Republicans do is tell you that voting against them causes cancer, impotence, terrorist attacks, and spontaneous decapitation. Oh, and only faggots, wimps, and terrorists don't believe everything they say without question.

[moggie12]

3. yeah, good point

Marketing, or manipulation by appealing to people's basest instincts? If Bush's rather rapid dropping of the Const ban on gay marriage doesn't wake people up, what will?? Talk about blatant!

[NVMojo]

4. After reading "Bush's Brain", I now believe it is all about marketing

and nothing about reality. And the marketing must be unreal.