Do politicians listen to the electorate? Do their feelings matter?

1. 86

   tsmogposted 4 months ago

   A Pew Research study shares that 8 of 10 Americans say elected officials/(Politicians) don't care what they think.
   
   True?
   False?
   Undecided?
   
   
   
   Does politicians and their respective party not caring about what one thinks cause different feelings such as anger and frustration affecting the vote?
   
   
   
   More than 80% of Americans believe elected officials don’t care what people like them think by Pew Research (Apr 30, 2024)
   https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … hem-think/
   
   For the curious comes a study of 150 countries saying, "Politicians and pollsters alike should pay greater attention to sadness and despair among voters, after a large-scale study highlighted the power of negative emotions in predicting election results.
   
   Voters’ feelings matter: large-scale study highlights predictive power of negative emotions on election results by University of Oxford (July 29, 2024)
   https://wellbeing.hmc.ox.ac.uk/news/vot … n-results/
   
   Key is 'Negative Affect' defined as . . .
   
   "Negative affect is classified under the classes of mood, emotion, and affect. It refers to the subjective experience of a group of negative emotional states such as anxiety, depression, stress, sadness, worry, guilt, shame, anger, and envy."
   
   "The researchers found that negative affect – not only ‘high-activation’ negative emotions such as anger and anxiety, but also ‘low-activation’ emotions such as depression and sadness – significantly predicted populist outcomes in the case of:
   
   ** Beliefs and attitudes in surveys using data from more than 150 countries globally;
   ** General election results within European countries between 2005 and 2018;
   ** Vote shares for Donald Trump in the USA at both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections;
   ** Area-level vote shares in the 2016 Brexit vote as well as vote shares for the Brexit Party and subsequent European parliamentary elections.
   
   
   Do you think those emotions are more prominent today?
   
   Do you think they affect the voter's vote?
   
   What do you think affects having those emotions most today related to governing and politics?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, or commentary?
   
   Notation: Consider both your 'feelings' and the electorate's today as we edge closer to Nov 5th less than 3 months away.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Just concentrating on your questions.
      
      In my view, emotions certainly play a significant role in today's political landscape, arguably more so than ever before. With the rapid spread of information (and misinformation) through social media and 24-hour news cycles, emotions like fear, anger, and frustration are often amplified and can greatly influence voter behavior. I feel, that many voters are driven by emotional responses to key issues like economic uncertainty, social justice, and national security, which can overshadow more rational considerations. These emotions are further fueled by the political rhetoric that often aims to evoke strong feelings rather than encourage thoughtful factual debate.
      
      The impact on voters, again my view,  is evident, as many people make decisions based on emotional connections to candidates or issues, rather than a deep understanding of policy. This can lead to polarization, as individuals align with parties or leaders who resonate with their emotional state, even if it means overlooking inconsistencies or flaws in those choices.  The factors that contribute most to these emotions today include the divisive nature of political discourse, economic disparities, social media echo chambers, and the sensationalism of media coverage.
      
      Thoughts on this dynamic are mixed; while some argue that emotional engagement is necessary to mobilize voters and address urgent issues, others criticize it for undermining reasoned decision-making and deepening societal divides. There are accolades for politicians who can effectively tap into the public’s emotions to inspire and lead, but there’s also concern that this focus on emotion over substance could lead to short-term thinking and governance that prioritizes immediate gratification over long-term solutions.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

         This is absolutely spot on.  So many people (a large majority IMO) simply refuse to take the time and effort to consider what a politician says; they simply go with the feeling that the words produce. 
         
         Bottom line is that emotional engagement IS necessary, while at the same time it replaces reasoned decision making and divides ever more deeply.  Necessary, but an evil that is destroying our form of government.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "Bottom line is that emotional engagement IS necessary, while at the same time it replaces reasoned decision making and divides ever more deeply.  Necessary, but an evil that is destroying our form of government."
            
            A good example --- Kamala Harris released her vision for the nation today, outlining a series of progressive programs that, while ambitious, would require significant legislative action by Congress to become reality.
            
            Unfortunately, some of these promises appear unrealistic, particularly given the political and financial hurdles they would face. Yet, it is expected that there will be those who, driven more by emotion than by common sense, will take her words at face value, abandoning reasoned decision-making.
            
            This highlights a critical issue in our political landscape: while emotional engagement is necessary for inspiring action and driving change, it often supplants rational thought, leading to deeper divisions and undermining our democratic process.
            
            It’s vital that citizens balance their emotions with common sense when making political decisions that affect our lives, as relying too heavily on one without the other can be detrimental to our form of government. Yes, and could certainly work to destroy our form of government.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

               Emotions vs Common Sense
               
               
               What influences emotional, knee jerk responses when making political decisions?
               
               Not having common sense?
               
               Immaturity?
               
               Give-me, give-me mentality?
               
               No basis for political thought?
               
               No reading ability?
               
               Bad history classes?
               
               No history clases?
               
               No social science classes?
               
               Indoctrination by Marxist teachers and professors?
               
               Getting paid to protest and recruitment for causes without believing in them.
               
               The enjoyment and high/excitement of being an emotional fire-bug?
               
               Peer acceptance for over-exaggerated, self-righteous positions.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Must say I agree.

                  replyreport
      2. 86

         tsmogposted 4 months agoin reply to this

         A little late, sorry . . .
         
         Well stated, Sharlee!! Yes, I agree, strategically some candidates play with the voters emotions particularly to sensitive topics - economy, immigration, abortion, health care. I say candidates because it is just not with the presidential race, it occurs down ballot as well even to the point of school board members - gender and race.
         
         And, yes, emotions can interfere with reasoning undoubtedly. With our political system the media taps into projecting emotions upon the audience/voters especially the further to the far right/left they go. Words are powerful causing emotions arriving as feelings.
         
         Feelings can both be reinforced and hurt. Of course, when in person there is body language to contend with a reflection of the speaker's emotions both overt and covert, yet may be exposed to the observer. For instance, a grimacing facial expression.
         
         I plan to offer my observations later, maybe. Yet, what caught my attention from the first graphic displays the results for the question, "% who say most elected officials . . . .
         
         Don't care what people like me think = 85%
         Care what people like me think = 14%
         
         Emphasis on 'like me'. Interestingly there isn't much separation between Republicans and Democrats only 8% while both are in the 80 percentile. When the participants answered that question obviously they thought of themself, their life inclusive of family, and what that encompasses (work and/or school). That leads to me asking does the electorate in general 'feel' misunderstood?
         
         Then the next graphic, which spawned looking into emotions with voters thus offering the second article, we discover the emotions;
         
         Angry
         Frustrated
         Basically Content
         
         Frustrated historically since '97 has been in the 50%+ range of participants except 2001 (9/11) when contentment was in the 50% range.
         
         "In psychology, frustration is a common emotional response to opposition, related to anger, annoyance and disappointment. Frustration arises from the perceived resistance to the fulfillment of an individual's will or goal and is likely to increase when a will or goal is denied or blocked."
         
         One thing I learned in college is there is a difference between emotions and feelings, though used synonymously. Psychologically emotions are experienced with the body and our mind recognizes that. Think of the emotion fear and the fight or flight response.
         
         Our feelings are the interpretation of our emotions that can be expressed. In other words, a conservative/liberal stomach knots up or the body becomes tense when the opposing ideology/party is mentioned. Then it is expressed.
         
         Again, those three in the graphic - angry, frustrated & basic contentment prompted me to look into emotions with voters and voting behavior.
         
         Just to toss a little more to consider from a Pew Research study back in Sept of 2023 we discover "Only 4% of the public says the political system in the U.S. is working extremely or very well today, while 23% say it is working somewhat well. About seven-in-ten (72%) say the system is working not too (45%) or not at all (27%) well."
         
         
         
         Few Americans say the U.S. political system is working very well today, and many lack confidence in its future by Pew Research (Sept 15, 2023)
         https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … 02-01-png/
         
         That is an interesting article because it is eight pages each a graphic. Take a peek. One is 'Anger and contentment with the federal government shift with presidential administrations'.
         
         Notation: Oops! Seems here I did do my observations instead of an independent post.
         
         [Edit] As an aside thinking of emotions and feelings if you feel comfortable what is the contrast of a Trump rally with Harris regarding those. One thing I noticed having watched them is Harris' is shorter. Do you think that has an impression on attendees?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "As an aside thinking of emotions and feelings if you feel comfortable what is the contrast of a Trump rally with Harris regarding those. One thing I noticed having watched them is Harris' is shorter. Do you think that has an impression on attendees?"
            
            I'm happy to share my perspective informally. To start, I see a distinction between feelings and emotions. Emotions, in my opinion, are innate and often triggered by immediate events—like the fight-or-flight response or a sense of revulsion in a particular situation. On the other hand, I view feelings as more complex and developed over time. They're emotions that have been processed, thought about, and formed through reflection.
            
            A Trump rally and a Harris rally are distinct events that reflect the differing political styles and strategies of the individuals they support. Trump rallies are typically characterized by high-energy crowds, often vocal and enthusiastic, with a tone that can be both confrontational and celebratory. He speaks to the people and encourages feedback. he seems to look for what hits home with his crowds.
            
            Trump often uses these rallies to energize his base, focusing on themes like nationalism, economic success, and opposition to political adversaries and the media. His speeches are typically improvised, delivering messages that resonate with a sense of populism and outsider status, deeply connecting with his core supporters. His demeanor is akin to sharing views in a casual, kitchen-table conversation—unfiltered and unapologetic, he expresses his opinions without concern for whether others agree or disagree.
            
            On the other hand, a Harris rally tends to be more structured and policy-focused, with a strong emphasis on inclusivity and social justice. To borrow a line from Gone With The Wind, it's as if they're saying, "We are going to give you 40 acres and a mule!" The atmosphere is generally more measured, with speeches that are scripted and consistent from one rally to the next, highlighting pressing issues like healthcare, racial equality, and economic reform. Harris’s rallies are tailored to an audience that appreciates a more deliberate and forward-looking approach, with a focus on unity and progress, that will require change. As Ken pointed out in another thread, she frequently repeats the phrase, "replacing what was... with what will be," this sentiment seems to resonate with her supporters as a progressive and inspiring message.
            
            While Harris's tone is still passionate, it tends to be more restrained/rehearse, compared to the energy at a Trump rally, reflecting a different method of engaging and mobilizing voters. Both types of rallies serve as vital platforms for their respective leaders to connect with supporters, but they do so with significantly different styles, content, demeanor, and overall atmospheres, each appears to effectively reach the audience they aim to speak to. Both provoke feelings and emotions. I would think Trump incites innate emotions due to his very unfiltered way of communicating. One just never knows what he will say.
            
            Now, after all that, let me answer your question regarding the length of a rally. I believe Trump genuinely loves being around people, enjoys speaking, and thrives on the excitement of his rallies. The crowd likely appreciates the sense that he's truly enjoying his time with them, sharing his unfiltered thoughts. There's a unique connection between Trump and his supporters, one that might be difficult to put into words. I think they feel that Trump gives them a voice, a voice they haven't had before. He makes the rallies all about them.
            
            As for Harris, she also seems to connect with her audiences. Ultimately, it's about the individuals and what they want to hear from a candidate, as well as how they want to hear it—whether filtered or unfiltered.
            
            It's very hard to compare the two. There has never been a politician quite like Trump, except perhaps Winston Churchill, in the way they both spoke to crowds. (please note I am not compareing these two governing skills, only communication skills)

            replyreport
            1. 86

               tsmogposted 4 months agoin reply to this

               Thank you, Sharlee, for the compare/contrast of the rallies style and context. Content we know is ideology/party related. I think you made some very astute observations in my mind.
               
               I am headed into the backyard now to do some chores, so will comment, maybe, later my observations. And, thoughts on yours.
               
               Question: Do you think with the vastness of campaign committees/leadership they advise to pattern the rallies toward the disposition of the audience related to their emotions and feelings. In other words, the speakers - Trump & Harris, may not be in the normal character instead reflecting the audience's expectations. Did that make sense?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  It’s clear that both Trump and Harris are using teleprompters with well-crafted speeches. These speeches are designed to meet the expectations of their audiences, meticulously planned to convince a large portion of the public to "Vote for Me."
                  
                  In my view, Harris generally sticks closely to the script, likely trusting the team that meticulously crafts her words and actions. It's possible that this doesn't fully reflect her true character, though it's hard to be certain since she seldom participates in unscripted interviews. In the few I've seen, her demeanor seems noticeably different from what we've seen at her recent rallies. She often appears nervous, sometimes struggling to answer questions directly, veering off-topic, or fixating on certain words. Occasionally, she tries to make the question seem humorous.
                  
                  Trump, on the other hand, often appears bored with the script and deviates from the teleprompter. I believe he does this deliberately because he knows his audience expects him to be the original Trump, not a toned-down version.

                  replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

   We need one emotion:
   
   Fear. The fear of loosing our Constitution of The United States.
   
   We need to understand it and stand behind it.
   
   We have been a great country because of the freedom and liberty given to us by our very wise and generous founding fathers.
   
   The majority has had a very good life in America, all due to the virtue of a people who have been encouraged and inspired by their freely chosen religions, their love of family and friends and their ability to live in an independent way, following their hopes, dreams and ambitions.
   
   We need to keep the American way of life and preserve all that is beneficial and good: The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the values, methods and practices prescribed in our founding documents.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      tsmogposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Kathryn for you feedback. Interesting you feel fear is the most important to have, though you related it to the Constitution. Yet, what of Love. With psychology used most is what is called Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. It says there are eight core emotions.
      
      
      
      Using that wheel do you think other of the core emotions are exercised by voters both generally and specifically? Could it be the lack of an emotion that drives the vote just as much as having an emotion?
      
      Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions: Exploring the Emotion Wheel
      https://www.6seconds.org/2022/03/13/plu … -emotions/

      replyreport
3. 86

   Venkatachari Mposted 4 months ago

   I think the question has been misunderstood. Tim Mitchell's question refers to the effect of the electorate's emotions on the political leaders, not vice-versa
   
   Are politicians guided or impacted by the feelings of the electorate? It rarely happens. No politician cares for the emotions of his people. Only an angelic politician would be thinking for his people.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      " No politician cares for the emotions of his people. Only an angelic politician would be thinking for his people." V M
      
      I view that opinion to be quite cynical.
      
      There are three goods:
      
      1.) The good which is for the sake of itself, alone.
      
      2.) The good which is only for the sake of something else.
      
      3.) The highest good, which is for the sake of itself AND something else.
      
      I am quite sure some politicians want to help/serve themselves AND the citizenry. Washington, Reagan and Trump, among many others, are in that category. (Not saying they are angels! )
      
      "Are politicians guided or impacted by the feelings of the electorate?'
      of course, they are! Unless they are Vulcan.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the input, Venkat. I may have been poor in wording as I was interested in both the emotions of the candidate leading the electorate and the emotions of the electorate both individually and as groups.

      replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

   I agree with Sharlee:
   
   Politicians should "encourage thoughtful factual debate," by presenting the true facts and logical reasoning behind their political stance.

   replyreport