In any organization that I have been in there is a healthy balance between following the standard line of thinking while striking out enough on your own to create your own niche in the current modes of thinking. I suspect in the political world we have to find our own voice that stays true to your central beliefs and the beliefs of your party but also rings true to your own personal beliefs. Variability mixed with central core ideas isn't a bad idea as a process moving forward.
I read the article, "John James fires back at Senate opponent: I stood up against terrorists, Dem 'lies are going to bounce off" by Celeb Parke.
This isn't advocating for or against a particular candidate. I think people will vote for who they believe represent them and their needs the most. I can only say that I believe that people contribute to the national dialogue through their own words and experiences. Sharing those experiences leads to greater knowledge of the candidates and what they believe.
There are certain things that will be said in unison and some things that will be said from a personal perspective. When what one says resonates with others it will attract followers. People judge the message by the person saying it and look for a lot of different cues to determine the genuineness of a message. Go with with what you feel about the message and the person saying it.
I can say I don't have much of a reason to distrust the message even though I don't necessarily hang on the news everyday. Most of what he says make sense from the vantage point in which he is saying it. Thus, I can say that I believe that the message he offers is a genuine one but that the votes are likely to be split down party lines.
There are some undecided independents and free thinkers that can be swayed by the right person and their message. In this case, what is being said, who is saying it and the ultimate meaning of the message will create an impression in the readers head. Such impressions can lead to increased positive reflectivity toward the speaker and the mess or it will lead to a negative impression that will impact recall at the ballot box.
The message should be unique enough to attract the public interest but similar enough to maintain alliance to a particular ideology. Much of the message will depend on the overall impression of the candidate during the time when they are talking. That means that voice, facial expression and the background/environment will have an impact on the total message and its perceptions to others in the middle of the voting spectrum. Those who come in with pre-determine beliefs about the candidates will interpret messages through a particular party lens.
Both of the candidates Peters and James have a long track record of serving their countries and I believe when push comes to shove both would be there to do what they feel is the right thing. That doesn't mean I would agree with everyone about everything but that we have the ability to think critically for ourselves about what we support and what values we have. Personally, I would love to see a political environment where both parties focus on the essential issues and not on each other. It makes for great entertainment but ultimately detracts from the business of running the country.
Parke, C. (September 1, 2020). John James fires back at Senate opponent: I stood up against terrorists, Dem 'lies are going to bounce off. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-james-fires-back-at-senate-opponent