Elections aren't determined by candidates' policies.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

They are determined by emotion. People think they make logical decisions but they don't. If you think your support for Candidate X is because of his/her policies, think again; it isn't. You like Candidate X because of what those policies tell you, emotionally, about the candidate and what kind of president he/she would be. You like your candidate because of the way he/she presents him/herself in public. How does he/she make you feel?

For example, Warren probably is the candidate with the most detailed policies and plans - but there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that they'll make it through Congress in their original form, or maybe in any form. Even her most ardent supporters would probably acknowledge that, at least if they understand how Congress really works. But what those detailed policies and plans tell us about Warren is that she is careful and thorough and thinks things through, and that she strongly believes in policies that are intended to benefit the majority of people who are not wealthy and she is a strong advocate for consumers. What this tells me is that she is empathetic. This quality also comes through in her public appearances and in the way she conducts her campaign. Warren - at least to me - has a strong vibe of empathy and sincerity. But some people think her speaking style is too preachy (I don't, but I've heard that comment). Will that quality detract from her positive vibe? More importantly, does the way she strikes people emotionally be more impactful than the details of her plans and policies?

How do the other candidates make us feel - forgetting about the wonky details (I think Democrats tend to concentrate on wonky details without understanding the emotional components of elections)? For example, I agree with a lot of Sanders' policies but he makes me feel like I'm being yelled at and browbeaten into believing him. So for me the vibe is mostly negative. Biden - to me - has a positive vibe of stability and warmth, as does Klobuchar. Buttigieg radiates decency and honesty. To what extent does a candidate's vibe either override or complement their policy details?

Trump's policies are either racist and oppressive or completely incoherent, and his vibe is negative and angry - but negative, angry people like that. So his voters disregard the aspects of his policies that actually harm them because they respond to him emotionally. Bush the Lesser projected a good ol' boy impression that made him seem friendly and likable even though he was an incompetent doofus, while Gore, clearly the smarter, more capable candidate, came across as stiff and remote (helped with that impression by the media).

Ultimately we and everyone else vote with our emotions, and we should recognize and consider that. How do the candidates make you feel? How do you think they make other people feel?

[DanTex]

1. I agree. Voters will say they care about policy, but there's not much evidence of that.

[rickyhall]

2. I think of policy, but mostly of the big picture.

Democrats want to preserve democracy as a matter of policy, Trumpublicans don't.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Is that a rational decision or an emotional one?

If you have one or more favorite candidates, how do they make you feel?

[unblock]

5. that, i think, is *the* defining issue for 2020

and what we should run on.

i love that we have policies aimed at making life better for all americans, but *the* issue should be restoring and securing our democracy. everything else is secondary, and defending democracy is something easily wrapped in dramatic patriotism that should sell well in november.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. But that's not the point. While this may be true,

the fact is that people are not rational in their decisions even though they think they are. Trump voters vote against the politicians and policies that would actually help them because Trump has tapped into an emotional reaction (mostly fear of the "other" ). How can Democratic politicians do the same thing in the opposite direction? Blathering about policy details and budgets and process won't do that unless people understand at their gut level how they have skin in the game.

[unblock]

8. But that is my point

We should talk about the usual policies just enough to motivate our side. But certainly once the general campaign starts, we should focus on the one issue of protecting and preserving our democracy and freedom and America and Apple pie and so on.

Thats an issue that packs a huge emotional punch and its the sort of thing that can actually reach some conservatives.

[unblock]

4. republicans are far better at emotional manipulation, and the media loves to play along.

people *could* make informed, reasonably logical decisions if only the media chose to only lay out the policy facts and legitimate character facts. instead, they throw in a ton of allegations and lies and substantively pointless facts, and then heavily emphasize a few select "narratives", most notably, ones that benefit republicans.

hillary had a quarter-century of service and quotes being in the public eye all that time, there was a vast amount of material for the media to bring to voters' attention. instead, they chose to make virtually all their 2016 hillary coverage about two pseudo-scandals republicans pushed.

al gore stiff and remote? who decided we should care about that, if it's even true? why was that a story? abraham lincoln was stiff and remote ffs. george washington, too, i think. meawhile, shrub was a complete shmuck, but the media barely mentioned that.


in practice we do vote based on emotions, but much of that is because that's what the media bombards us with. they do not remotely make it easy for people to critically evaluate policy proposals, particularly, as you say, to envision a plausible outcome of your candidate actually pushing such proposals through congress. i especially roll my eyes are cost estimates, as that's the least predictable thing about any big policy proposal when you still aren't considering how congress will trim it down.

[question everything]

7. Agree. Many years ago a savvy political person told me that we like our presidents to be

personable. This was after the 1992 elections and Bill Clinton, of course was mister personable.

Trump is not, of course, but, as you points out, he is visceral. His supporters feel connection with him.

And perhaps this is a good opportunity to ask why voters gravitate, these days, to candidates who talk about doom and gloom. While neither Sanders nor Warren use the term "carnage," and, I suppose, Trump will no longer do, they all appeal to the same feelings.

Look at the last debate, at the closing arguments:

Warren: "So, much is broken in this country..." but at least she added: "And yet I come here tonight with a heart filled with hope and it’s filled with hope"

Sanders: "The major question is how does it happen in the richest country in the history of the world that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, trying to get by,"...with a litany of awfuls that ends with: "This is the moment where we have got to have the courage to take on the one percent, take on the greed and corruption of the corporate elite"

But positive comments from Klobuchar

What is hard is bringing people together and finding common ground instead of scorched earth. What is hard is the work of governing. So if you are tired of the extremes in our politics and the noise and the nonsense, you have a home with me.

And Biden, the last one

We in fact have to regain the respect of the world in order to be able to change things. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a position right now we have to remember who we are. This is the United States of America. There’s not a single thing beyond our capacity to do if we do it together, let’s go do it.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/january-iowa-democratic-debate-transcript

I posted these impressions here after the debate ended

I do hope that someone will talk about the "shining city on the hill." Yes, by Reagan, who, for many, was also mister personable.