One style is the complement of the other, so I don't think you make a good point.
> One style is the complement of the other, so I don't think you make a good point.
I am not a psychology student or a professional and I am unaware if studies have been done on the topic. Also, I am speaking in general, not just with respect to the US elections.
I disagree. Demonizing and providing the option to select the lesser evil is much more effective psychologically than saintifying and providing the option to choose the better saint. It is reasonable to expect people to be extra cautions in choosing the lesser evil as it troubles their morality if they wrongly choose the bigger evil. In the latter case however, people could afford to be more complacent, and could even fail to perceive any difference at all. And we can all see that demonizing is never done equally, some parties get targeted more than others, for whatever reasons, So it seems one could steer the result by choosing to demonize. I don't think or know that this is intentionally used as a strategy (by whom?) but if it were its clever.
And if he does what does that say about his stance on climate change?
Personally, hashbrowns are hashbrowns. Doesn't matter if I cook them or McDonalds cooks them. Coffee is also, at least to me, coffee. Doesn't matter if I brew it or McDonalds brews it.
If my breakfast is going to be hashbrowns and coffee - I can buy that at McDonalds. Some people are not okay with buying it from McDonalds because it is McDonalds, which doesn't make much sense to me.
But he is the worlds richest man and doesn't need to "fund raise"; he cannot be brought.
He has demonstrated himself wise, kind, well meaning and uncorruptable.
I well remember how Microsoft was evil and Gates was the devil and we all loved to hate this success.
But applying himself to philanthropy he has demonstrated his intellectual integrity and genuine goodness.