The problem is that we don’t know how influential the blind spot is. It could just fade away after a couple minutes and a “hey, wait a minute...” But assuming it sticks:
If I were a car salesmen, I would have potential customers tell me their ideal car and then I would tell them what I want their ideal car to be as though I were simply restating what they just said.
If I were a politician, I would target identities (e.g., latino, pro-life, low taxes, ect) rather than individuals because identities are made of choices and they’re easier to target than individuals. The identity makes a choice and then you assume the identity chose you. E.g., “President Obama has all but said that I’m instigating “class warfare,” or that I don’t care about business owners, or that I want to redistribute wealth. Well, Mr. Obama, I am fighting with and for the 99%; the middle class; the inner city neighborhoods that your administration has forgotten; Latinos; African-Americans. We all have had enough of the Democrats decades long deafness towards our voice. Vote Romney.” Basically, you take the opposition’s reasons for not voting for you and then assume those reasons are for the opposition, and you run the ads in the areas you want to affect.
I don’t like either presidential candidate. I need to say that before I say this: using current rather than past political examples is playing with fire.
I completely agree with you; there shouldn’t be any problems discussing political examples where you’re only restating a campaign’s talking points rather than supporting one side or the other.
The problem is that we don’t know how influential the blind spot is. It could just fade away after a couple minutes and a “hey, wait a minute...” But assuming it sticks:
If I were a car salesmen, I would have potential customers tell me their ideal car and then I would tell them what I want their ideal car to be as though I were simply restating what they just said.
If I were a politician, I would target identities (e.g., latino, pro-life, low taxes, ect) rather than individuals because identities are made of choices and they’re easier to target than individuals. The identity makes a choice and then you assume the identity chose you. E.g., “President Obama has all but said that I’m instigating “class warfare,” or that I don’t care about business owners, or that I want to redistribute wealth. Well, Mr. Obama, I am fighting with and for the 99%; the middle class; the inner city neighborhoods that your administration has forgotten; Latinos; African-Americans. We all have had enough of the Democrats decades long deafness towards our voice. Vote Romney.” Basically, you take the opposition’s reasons for not voting for you and then assume those reasons are for the opposition, and you run the ads in the areas you want to affect.
I don’t like either presidential candidate. I need to say that before I say this: using current rather than past political examples is playing with fire.
I completely agree with you; there shouldn’t be any problems discussing political examples where you’re only restating a campaign’s talking points rather than supporting one side or the other.