This finding is consistent with the theory of “minimal effects” in political communication research. The people who are most likely to engage with political messaging are the least likely to be influenced by it. Indeed, a recent study indicates the net effect of most political campaigns is probably zero. If the most sophisticated American campaigns can’t really influence voters, why should we expect the Russians to be anymore successful?CAMPAIGNS HAVE NO EFFECT ON VOTERS. This got mentioned in NYTimes. Nobody noticed, nobody started asking questions about the "election" process and the billion-dollar campaign industry. My first response was good old Manweller, the long-standing observation that elections are not allowed to make changes. Another obvious metaphor is Share Value. Big corporations don't seek profit, they seek maximum share value. A business that wants profit tries to gain customers. A business that wants share value tries to lose customers. Customers and employees and factories are Negative Externalities that interfere with Share Value. Politicians don't seek votes, they seek donors, who are the same NYC monsters as share-buyers. A politician who wants votes tries to gain voters. A politician who wants donors tries to lose voters. The latter is clearly accurate for Federal campaigns, especially presidents. For many decades the parties have been trying to disgust and repel voters who are open to making choices. Both parties want ONLY the mechanical partybots who can be moved mechanically by shouting the official talking points. The Share Value takeover is more complete in politics than business. Privately owned businesses still exist, still seek profit, and still try to gain customers. I don't see any evidence of a distinction between NYC and private in politics. I don't see any politicians at any level trying to gain votes.
Labels: Shared Lie
The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.