I really question how effective campaigning is these days. Do people really change their vote because a candidate came to visit their town? If you’re a staunch liberal, I highly doubt you’re going to vote for Trump just because he did a campaign speech in Iowa.
“I really question how effective campaigning is these days.”
I think Trump has just proven the effectiveness of old-fashioned campaigning. Of course personal appearances by a candidate aren’t going to sway either a staunch liberal or a staunch conservative. Trump’s rallies energized people who hadn’t voted for years, Those are the folks who made it impossible for the urban vote fraud by the Democrats to work in the swing states.
Hillary in constrast energized George Soros and the House of Saud and no one else.
I think that if you go back to the days of Truman. He was crossed off as so far behind he couldn’t win. He got on a train, and hit the Heartland, talking straight to the people. Dewey sat pat giving occasional speeches that were canned and not related to the local community.
Move to 2012. Romney and Ryan are comfortably ahead, so it seemed. They do a Dewey and stop the campaigning. Obama goes on tv show after show and campaigns until he’s hoarse. He wins.
2016. Polls show Trump, like REagan, down in late October. He revs up the campaigning, doing 3,4 and 5 per day. Clinton does a Dewey and sits pat.
In short, I think people wait until the last minute to hear the candidate, watch the debates. Trump won this thing in the last month with his airplane stops.
I have a different theory based on what we saw that campaigns are NOT won based on the squishy center. What matters instead is the ability to excite and turn out those who are inclined to vote for you already. That’s where I think hitlery failed and DJT prevailed.