The trendiest political trends
11:56am
Mark Penn is the pollster of choice for those politicians who still believe in the third way. He advised Tony Blair on how to win a third term in 2005, advice that cost Labour £530,372, and is now a key part of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. So his new tome, Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes, is sure to be pored over for hints as to where campaigning is going next.
One of the most interesting of Penn’s findings is that in the US a plurality of those who earn under a $100,000, roughly £50,000, vote for a candidates based on the issues while amongst those who earn more than that a majority make their choice based on character and personality. I’d be intrigued to find out if this holds true for the UK too. It would certainly explain why Cameron’s aroma based approach had its greatest success in the most prosperous parts of the country.
Hat tip: Marc Ambinder
Previous
Common sense
August 21st, 2007 12:37pm Report this commentI expect that it does. Rich people are far more concerned about what their friends think of them than the rest of us. Hence, how metropolitan opinion swings one way--Gordon's awful--and then the other--Gordon's great.
Anthony C
August 21st, 2007 5:42pm Report this commentCould the reason for this be that "the issues" simply have less impact upon those who earn a very substantial amount of money? I suppose that once you earn a certain amount, you can be fairly self-sufficient in matters such as health, education etc - so long as Michael Foot doesn't suddenly become Prime Minister. In many areas, what the government adopts as policy begins to have less and less personal relevance as the more money one has, the better able one is to simply opt out. People who aren't wealthy generally don't have that option and therefore the meat and potatoes of policy are more likely to have a direct impact. Or maybe not. That was my initial instinct, anyway.
Back to top