Let’s say your opponent, who is an incumbent, is criticizing you for being inexperienced. And let’s say your campaign decides to counter that criticism by maintaining you’re a fast learner. So here’s the question…
Which would be more effective: If you say you’re a fast learner or if a third-party says you’re a fast learner?
The answer, of course, is if someone else attests to your quick learning abilities on your behalf.
This would be true in any profession, but especially true in politics where, if you maintain the sun rises in the east some are going to start questioning the truth of the statement.
Indeed, nobody trusts anything a politician says…with, unfortunately, good cause – thanks to many a lyin’ weasel before you.
So you can go out there and tell people you’re a fast learner ‘til the cows come home, and many, if not most, voters will be skeptical of the claim. It reminds me of the old Margaret Thatcher line about being a lady. “If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”
With all that in mind, most campaigns do go through the process of obtaining endorsements for the candidate. But those endorsements usually fall far short of their potential power.
If just having the individual’s or organization’s name on the candidate’s endorsement list is considered a positive, how much more so if that individual or organization offered up a full-blown testimonial rather than simply adding their name to an endorsement list?
And how much even more powerful would such a testimonial be if it either (a) affirmed a positive attribute about you or (b) countered a criticism of you?
Back to our example of the inexperienced candidate…
* * *
The rest of this post is covered in your trial edition of Psephology Today. Subscription information and special introductory offer below…