Particularly at this point in the campaign. It is virtually never about persuasion, but only driving turnout amongst those already most likely to agree. It makes reasonable sense very late in the campaign to use limited resources where they have the most bang for the buck. However, it is a riskier strategy in a district like Ossoff's where the Dems are a minority. If you only drive turnout, you will lose. There needs to be some persuasion to promote crossover voting. But Dems always assume that persuasion is there because people will use their common sense to see that R policies are driving the country into the ground. Unfortunately, people don't vote on common sense.
Anywho, persuasion is not really how politics is done in the US. The campaign professionals, like those who ran HRC's campaign, and Gore's campaign, and Kerry's campaign (remember those great successes?), mock the idea of changing voters' minds. If you even discuss it, you are mocked and ridiculed as some sort of uninformed idealist that has no place in professional politics.
Just driving turnout tends to be self-sustaining because it always appears to have been the right strategy in retrospect, because it will usually turn out to have succeeded in districts when the winning candidate had the edge in registrations in the district or state where the election was held.
And it often works well for Republican campaigns because the Republicans have already invested in almost fifty years of persuasion through entities like Fox News, Regnery Publishing, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, etc.
The Democrats have no equivalent mass effort to bring cultural, social, political, and economic thinking back to the left, so trying to win in places like MT and LA is much harder, particularly without effective persuasive techniques.
My two cents.
= new reply since forum marked as read
