4 ms·
For as long as I can remember, every election is followed by the losing political party claiming either (1) they didn't do a good job with marketing, or (2) the
by maxlybbert 10y ago
For as long as I can remember, every election is followed by the losing political party claiming either (1) they didn't do a good job with marketing, or (2) the other side does marketing better.
The political parties never publicly state that the voters disagreed with their platform, or that their platform was focused on the wrong things, or that the voters were willing to take a gamble on something new, etc. It's always the case that the voters would have chosen their party if they had run better ads, or more ads, or ads in different places, etc.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe electoral college decided the election. Voter sentiment was at least even, or favored Clinton. So the mechanics of marketing and such were really an important factor in the election. Hopeful, empty rhetoric about jobs just might have won the election for Clinton. Instead there were gaffes and silence.
- maxlybbert 10y agoMaybe this election really came down to marketing. However, when every post-mortem amounts to "we don't need to change the party platform; we just need to work on messaging" I start to wonder if the post-mortems do any good. Sometimes you need a shake up.