I have been helping a client with a fundraising campaign.
In researching how to successfully do these things, it turns out positive campaigns are far more effective than negative.
This is good. Good for humanity, of course. And reassuring.
But also surprising.
Its certainly not the nature of almost every political campaign we see and / or are subjected to.
These are negative. Divisive. Poking our most fearful monkey minds.
Turns out the science - and these things are well studied - shows that negative might be good for shoring up the core, those people inclined to go your way anyway, but singularly fail to connect with the independent. You’d have thought that for any campaign worth its salt, we should aspire to the broadest pool possible.
If our campaign isn’t positively impacting, moving, the broadest coalition possible, is it worthy of our time, of our efforts?