American campaigning: Preaching for the choir?

Putting aside whether I agree or disagree with any given candidate for a second, I want to ask you (the collective you) a question.

Why is it, that in American campaigning - not only, but primarily, for political elections - you always seem to be preaching for the choir? Instead of focusing on getting you point across, it feels like you'd rather 'stick it' to the opponent, and in the process alienate those whose votes you wanted in the first place.

I can't help but wonder if, besides hurting your given cause, it is also why you have an - in my view - relatively low voting percentage.

If these threads are anything to go by, there is a general loathing of politics and politicians spanning the entire spectrum of political viewpoints, and that's no wonder, I think, if you're bombarded with adds, comments, speeches and, yes, forum threads 'sticking it' to an opponent, rather than, say, saying 'here's why my guy is awesome!'

The thing is, I think, that everybody - the average American - loses when you forget to tell why to vote rather then why not. Democracy is such an awesome tool for the people, but that kind of campaigning is discouraging for the voters, and while I wont go as far is calling it 'a threat' to the very core of said tool, it is getting there.

For every single voter that decides not to bother, the American people loses a little bit of power. In 2008 48,7% decided not to bother. That is a lot of power lost.

Somebody is gaining that power - and it is not the people.


Anyway, surely 'talking up' ones own candidate must be more productive? Imagine the potential in getting just a fraction of the votes of those 48,7 %! If you could do that, you'd have the power to make every state a swing state - but you just can't do that by preaching to the choir.


So help me understand why campaigning is done the way it is - I don't get it!



Disclaimer: I know that I might not see the full picture, that there is more to campaigning than I get to see here (in Denmark), so if I'm totally in the wrong about this I apologise. Also this is my first thread, so though I don't think I did, here's apologising for any infraction of rules

The 'preaching to the choir' thing was something I thought of yesterday.

Both Obama and Romney were giving 'closing speeches' .. and both actually did a good job. But the audiences where they were giving the speeches were made up of those who were already their supporters. And the MSM only carried bits and pieces of the speeches .. and MSNBC didn't carry Romney at all. So in essence, those closing speeches about what they stand for and what exactly they'd do .. it all was 'preaching to the choir' and only got heard by the supporters at their rallies.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yes, I think that every time I read about rallies too. They are mostly for show, aren't they?

The wast majority of people shoving up at your rally obviously already support you, so I figure it isn't about convincing the those people.

It's about 'making noise' isn't it? And about having something to show off - it's the promotional value that counts, I think.

(or what..?)

reply to post by DupontDeux


No takers?

I would really like some input telling me whether my perception of how campaigning is done is somewhat accurate or really far off. Mostly because that while over the years many of my believes about the U.S. have been confirmed, just as many have been put to shame - so enlighten me please; shoo away my ignorance!