Chasing a specific group only leads to pandering and ultimately results in the alienation of existing members/supporters....
At which point, the probability of a net loss of votes exceeds the probability of a net gain.
Historically, there has always been a large group of non-voters....
These People are up for grabs...
a certain percentage can be reached
(Especially if there is a powerful message)
and converted from non-voters to voters.
It makes no sense to expend time & effort to play tug of war trying to pull existing voters over the line.
Those who would be pulled across will most likely cross over on their own at some point.... and even if they do not... fine.
The objective needs to be increasing market share by tapping into "NEW" customers not currently participating in the market...
not by trying to shift the brand loyalty of the existing market's participants.
Prejudices of varying degrees are part of reality..
both between groups and within groups...
hell, even within families who share DNA & share socio economic status designations...
Throughout any 24 hour period we all shift roles.. from being part of the majority to being part of the minority
depending upon the particular setting we are in at any given moment...
And as such, we are each subject to varying degrees/ expressions of prejudice, privilege, advantage, disadvantage as we participate in all of our various roles ....
This is a social dynamic which should not be present in government policy decisions ....
IOW, government should, first and foremost, protect every person's Constitutional rights and freedoms
to be who they are...
without preference for or opposition of any particular view or group or philosophy or characteristic ....
Beyond that, the government should enact policies which are necessary
to protect the long term sustainability
of the natural, fiscal, and diplomatic
environments and resources upon which we, the People, are all dependent.
But this is just one person's opinion ....
= new reply since forum marked as read