To be completed a bit more...
The old saying is, indeed, very true:

"People don't care what you know until they know that you care."

Handle their fears first, let them know your caring, and tell them, simply, how you will create the solutions and why you are capable.  Repeat, repeat, repeat expressing your caring and that you stand for what benefits them, in clear strong terms.

The wise politician knows that people

1.  Often won't spend the time to find the facts nor to use rational thinking.
2.  Will believe "talking points" of whoever they agree with or that agree to their non-thought out conclusions.
3.  Will focus on a few things that matter to them.
4.  Will operate from a largely emotional basis, based on "heart" and "gut", what feels right and just (not realizing that they are often based on unexamined beliefs).
5.  Will bias their decision toward somebody who benefits them the most. (Self-interest and "selfishness", a reality.)

The wise politician addresses people's concerns directly and expresses compassion over and over and over.   The wise politician makes his/her stand very, very clear and emphatically.

And some will pander and misuse the fears and emotions and lack of rational thinking and facts to scare and mislead people, to inspire them with false promises and/or ones they believe but don't have the ability to implement. 

Talk to a Democrat and they will express fear of the Republicans taking away all their benefits and rights, ruining the environment, and having corporations run the country - all not true statements but believed statements where people hold them as being true.

Talk to a Republican and they will express fear of the Democrats giving away too much, making people dependent (and creating a Greece), and taxing too much, ruining the economy and lowering prosperity.  But there are Blue Dog Democrats who use the values of the left but the economic prudency of the right.

Because the Republicans say "enough", they are seen as strict parents who don't care about their dependents.  

A politician who runs on how good he/she is and what he/she will do can get out of touch with the way people receive information and remember it.

Information, due to evolution, is remembered primarily when their is an emotional impact connected with it.  A great politician knows that and utilizes it, creating a huge political impact and even a "believing in" the candidate, as a symbol of some great emotional issue/want.  (This works for awhile, but then the substance and execution becomes important, though people still hold on to the emotion, kind of a form of "love".)

Who wants a politician who is a stern taskmaster, even if that is "good for" people?
Who wants an analytical giant?

Few do, so a politician has to appeal to all the other people.

The following happens to be from a recent conversation, though I've had equally "not-rational" thinking and insistence on their being right from some Republicans.  As long as we continue to not employ "critical thinking", aka rational thinking, we will be giving away, indeed flushing down the drain, much of what we could have had.


Not taking sides, but here is a conversation I had with a person I greatly respect (so it is not about the person, but it is about the thinking process).   Her statements were illuminating and reflected the emotionality of another friend.  She believed/said:

If Romney is President, we will turn into a Fascist state, with corporations running things.  And we've seen what a Fascist state did to the Jews (she is Jewish).

Only the "progressives" have been the ones to create improvements for the people:  civil rights, medical coverage, the safety nets and "entitlements", etc.  (Pointing out the No Child Left Behind program, she responded on how badly it worked, but was not happy to see that Democrats and especially Ted Kennedy were behind it.)

She's never seen a Republican who touched her heart - never heard them be a champion of the common man.  (I was disappointed to hear Romney talk about the huge problem for the middle class but failing to mention the poor.  Yes, the middle class is where the votes are, but those votes are affected by a concern for the President being caring for the predicament of the poor.)

Greed is a huge failure.  The Rich don't pay enough taxes.  The Republicans are for the Rich.  (Unless the politician says he is for the greater good of all of the people and for definitely preserving the social safety net for those who can't provide for themselves.)

Any attempt to discuss "the facts" or to suggest rational, balanced thinking meant with barriers, even saying that her gut feelings were accurate indicators of what is true (gut feeling, intuition, "it feels right" are often lined up with what is rational, but not always; the thinking error is to generalize that gut feelings are correct, rather than possibly correct and still needing rational thinking to see what is true). 


Clearly "X" knows how to appeal to people and be attractive and to do simple messages that are clear and repeated and repeated - even catchy phrases, so people remember him.  "Y" uses a motto of "jobs" (not very unique) and "believe in America" (nice, but so what).  

I'll use a simplified list/form and evaluate him on that (1-10).

_0__ Stating a clear "why" he is running (See Clear Why: The Dream.)

_0__ Clear statement repeated often enough of how he cares.

_0__ Catchy memorable phrase.

_1__ Comforting, reassuring statements

_0__ Emotionally appealing and impactful statements and examples.

_1__ A clear statement of assuring that he will keep a good safety net and even improve the capabilities of the poor so that they become better off and become good contributors. 
       _0_ A clear statement that he will protect social security and medicare as is for
              those 55 and over (not a vague statement with no age).
       _0_ A clear statement that he will not foist privatization on people and will
              support choice of plans, including keeping the same existing format.

_1_  Clarify in simple terms why the criticisms of him are not true or why they are an advantage.  

While I am not evaluating the candidates here, I am evaluating the poor politics.  If a well-qualified candidate chooses to run, he must deal with the realities of politics and he must be excellent at it - or forget it.  That's just what's true and MUST be considered.