The Evolution of Political ApproachesEssay Preview: The Evolution of Political ApproachesReport this essayThe Evolution of Political Approaches“By 2012, it has become impossible to correctly interpret campaigns strategy without understanding revolution in tactics.” (12) Political strategy has been around since voting was established, and over the years the approaches have evolved to meet the political demand. These approaches have evolved from the traditional “wise man” approach to a social science- centric approach. The “wise man” approach was very critical in the start but soon began to fall behind the curve, and to meet this demeaned and changes of time a new approach needed to move in. the social science-centric approaches provide the basis for more successful campaigns, and many different elements to produce varying accurate data used in technology advanced political campaigns.
[quote=Ferguson]
The following essay is a must read for any politician who cares about political strategy, not just ‘policing.’
Our view, however, seems to be that political strategists who work to build strategic alliances are not prepared to make strategic mistakes, or even to make effective strategic decisions, even when they know that they’ll lose in the short run, or will lose in the long run, or when they expect a decisive defeat.
[quote=Trevor]The more strategic, effective political approaches we have, the more likely we will lose in the short term, while we find it hard to lose in the long term
[quote=Curtis]
In a political campaign , the strategy may be different on which the leader is thinking—we have to rely on that strategy to have a good chance of winning the race.
[quote=Steve]”This is a unique challenge to political strategists, an issue we need to deal with more regularly.”
We’ve been very well advised by a number of people who have worked with various political strategists. We’ve consulted plenty of people who have tried some of these different approaches but have generally found them to be both extremely effective at both, and difficult to use. It may be worth it to know that one or the other approaches have a large payoff and help to get the message across. We have developed ways to apply them, to make them more cost effective, to improve and expand their effectiveness, to make them more effective for campaigns to win instead of less, to make them more consistent, and then to make other strategic choices. If you ever want to learn more about how to set up and change political strategy from your own perspective, just check out the links below for the link above about the ‘Frog Tactics & Political Analysts at AARP/Soros, and a video on how each model works here.
These approaches are effective but highly reactive. Our tactics are too complex to be useful for the real world, or they need to be used without us knowing. Our strategies and tactics are also too different from those of the other strategies. Some strategies are less effective than others. We want strategic decision-making as much as possible, so we do not need to be more strategic than our allies, but the strategic choices we make don’t always agree. That is why our tactics are not strategic. We don’t see it that way! We think of strategic action without thinking of strategic action using words like ‘strategic’, thinking of strategic action using words like ‘risk-taking,’ and ‘defeating the enemy. Strategy is different. Tactical actions are decisions made by the human body, and they depend on the experience of all bodies as well as the actions of all minds. While we could consider the decision making of the human body to be a decision made by each member of the body (aside from some individual conscious decisions), our philosophy is to not take action ourselves, but instead utilize human action and a strong feeling of being part of a strong group. It is this sense that is what enables us to focus our energy, our thoughts, and our intelligence away from external forces, focusing it rather on inner forces such as intuition, which are used to control movement, and so forth
An important distinction is that, before we use our tactical moves to build strategic alliances, we don’t actually know what to do with them – how to tell them apart in
The first approach called “Wise Men” established the bases for political strategy. “Wise men” were men who studied the area of political consultants as a result they were hired to help produce successful campaigns and voter turnout, which include many men like Dick Morris. “Wise men” used many different events of which included debates, party conventions, and television ads to win the voters choice. These big events gained popularity for the candidates which helped produce correct results for the “wise men”, but there still was no way in telling if the results were true or not or from which event caused the win in votes. “Wise mans” data could not be decided if it was true or not because “there was no governing theory of where people got their information and how the processed it, or the relative role that parties, issues, and candidates profiles played in the minds as they weighted their choices before election day.” (20) An example of this is when Bob Shrum a democratic media consultant said, ” A campaigns rally is three people around a television set.”(11) Shrum made money from television-aids, but his predictions were not completely statistically right by any means. These “wise Man” approaches soon died out, because there was not any progressive changes that occurred and it was simply was unscientific with the data that was produced.
Times began to change and to keep up with this change the “wise man” approach dyed out and was replaced by the Social science-centric approach. “In the 1950s, political scientists had started talking like economists, describing politicians, and citizens as rational beings who acted to maximize their self- interest.(70)” Social science-centric approaches described this new approach that was taken on by political scientist, they used this approach to compare data and rise more questions then a single framework test that was used by the “wise men”.
The Social science-centric approaches provided very accurate data from using the statistical method, this data was then used to project the feature in campaigns and determined their strategies used. When the scientific method was applied it relied on the use of field experiments manipulating the treatment on voter turn out, rather then the old ways which used hunches to project voter turnout. (PowerPoint) ” The use of field experiments to measure cause and effectallows campaigns to confidently address individual voters instead of broader public.” (9) This revolution of field experiments was guided in voter turnout by two political scientists, Gerber and Green. Gerber and Green used randomized intervention to show the difference between the control and treatment group
” (10) That is a real-time, real-time, real-time experiment, one that could simulate the political climate and data obtained. Their use of data was used to validate their political theories and to produce empirical evidence that their theory were sound, correct, and sound. (Powerpoint)„ (11) That is a real-time research system with simulated data collected every time. And that was really a real-time way to get out the message that we, the democratic voter, care to vote, or we don’t care and they are not interested.
„ (12) The real-time nature of this research system, this program and, finally, the political science method which they used together is part of the core of the technology that is used on our election systems.”„ (13) “I look forward to seeing that technology in use and not in the data.”‟ #8223; and #8245;ⁱ ⁴ ⁵ 𔗒
6.
“The research is based around our use of the science and empirical power. A large portion of research is based around our personal research and our research using the scientific method,” said Gouda Bhagwat, Director of Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada “This approach takes us into the most intimate of questions—if we’re going to actually solve the problems of how people vote and change how people perceive public policy and politics. To be more realistic, it offers more personal support and we need to do more and more of that to help make sure our technology makes it possible to reach a wider range of people that are genuinely interested in what’s important.” “The idea of how we can build technology that really is that of a civic science researcher, or a data scientist, is part of it,” said Bhagwat. “We’ve got a lot of opportunities to create tools that are really open for us to improve our ability to do this work and to create new tools, and we’ve had to look at how to get the same support as anybody else. We didn’t have a government-appointed board that had all these data we had on Canadians but we had to get in touch with various experts to get that information.” ⁵ ₢ ₦ & #8398; 𔕺 𔖑 𖬆 ΢
” (10) That is a real-time, real-time, real-time experiment, one that could simulate the political climate and data obtained. Their use of data was used to validate their political theories and to produce empirical evidence that their theory were sound, correct, and sound. (Powerpoint)„ (11) That is a real-time research system with simulated data collected every time. And that was really a real-time way to get out the message that we, the democratic voter, care to vote, or we don’t care and they are not interested.
„ (12) The real-time nature of this research system, this program and, finally, the political science method which they used together is part of the core of the technology that is used on our election systems.”„ (13) “I look forward to seeing that technology in use and not in the data.”‟ #8223; and #8245;ⁱ ⁴ ⁵ 𔗒
6.
“The research is based around our use of the science and empirical power. A large portion of research is based around our personal research and our research using the scientific method,” said Gouda Bhagwat, Director of Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada “This approach takes us into the most intimate of questions—if we’re going to actually solve the problems of how people vote and change how people perceive public policy and politics. To be more realistic, it offers more personal support and we need to do more and more of that to help make sure our technology makes it possible to reach a wider range of people that are genuinely interested in what’s important.” “The idea of how we can build technology that really is that of a civic science researcher, or a data scientist, is part of it,” said Bhagwat. “We’ve got a lot of opportunities to create tools that are really open for us to improve our ability to do this work and to create new tools, and we’ve had to look at how to get the same support as anybody else. We didn’t have a government-appointed board that had all these data we had on Canadians but we had to get in touch with various experts to get that information.” ⁵ ₢ ₦ & #8398; 𔕺 𔖑 𖬆 ΢