(no subject)

[tinyjo]

Through clear, repeatable experiments, rather than focus group hunch or vox pop anecdote, he establishes that "the political brain is an emotional brain". Voters make up their minds not by weighing the competing claims of different parties and deciding which best suits their interests, but by how they feel.

A really interesting if depressing article. If only we could come up with some other way to agree on who runs things. [via Nick Robinson]

Comments

[applez.livejournal.com]

A better way? Three competing supercomputers?

On a serious note - does that article really surprise you? I mean, speaking for myself, even for those candidates I like, I recognize the heavy emotional component that features. Apologies for US-centeredness of the following examples, but...

1. I recognize the political abilities of Hillary Clinton, respect her achievements, but I fundamentally don't trust her or her ambitions. My subsequent rational analysis of her ability to activate as much or more opposition votes as she can supporting votes is a secondary justification to my core emotional measurement of her character (as I perceive it).

2. I like Obama a lot as a candidate, but he has yet to actually elaborate any significant platform of solid policies. His core strengths remain excellent communication, an 'all in this together' message, and a whole lot of money ... not necessarily winning characteristics for either the party nomination (which requires party-machine skillz) or the Presidency.

3. I tolerate the centrist policies of the conservative McCain, but there are some areas of his politics that I feel are absolutely abominable. I can nevertheless find him a palatable option from the Republican spectrum.

As you have no doubt noted, these are very personality-orientated analyses - very very light on actual political substance...and I don't think I'm all that different from the average voter (who actually votes).