The authors claim that "Even back then, branding mattered." Is this true? Is branding as important today? What political "brands" do you recall being effective or ineffective?

Lincoln becomes known as the Rail Splitter. The authors claim that "Even back then, branding mattered." Do you believe this to be true? In what ways can this kind of brand help or hurt a candidate, in your opinion? Do you think branding is as important today? What political "brands" do you recall being effective in your lifetime?

I feel like branding might have been more important during Lincoln's day. Back then, people needed some way to differentiate candidates - something to make them stand out. Today I feel like with all the information available we can get a pretty complete picture of the person we're electing, so it's no longer necessary to try to fit a person in a neat little box to establish their image with the electorate.

I think the branding that we see nowadays is more repeated soundbites used by all politicians. We see politicians that we to Ivy League Schools condemning the "Elite" and others who take the train or take the bus to "connect" with constituents.

Branding is very alive and not well in today's political arena. Elites vs the common folk, disrespecting challenged individuals with mimicking gestures, turning "Woke" into a bad word, the multiple attempts to turn everyone into a victim. We are becoming a society of "them versus us" and with many of the participants not even knowing what the statements they are saying even mean.

I believe every candidate uses "branding" to try and establish themselves as recognizable to the public. Unfortunately, a lot of the branding is using language that sets them above and denigrates others. The ugliness of the political parties that is represented in this book is still happening today - the reason for the us and them may be identified differently, but our candidates play to that chasm continually.

Branding is important in the political arena...it's a way for people who don't follow politics to remember things about a candidate. Unfortunately, it turns negative quickly and gives voters wrong information.

Logos provide easy to remember, identifiable ways to show affinity to a political candidate or cause, just as they do to a product, sports team, etc. Think of how many logos we remember from our childhood; "No matter what shape your stomach's in", " my bologna's spelled...", "DYNOMITE!!!", "All the Way with LBJ!"

Political branding continues to be important. Look at MAGA. I daresay there isn't an adult in America who doesn't recognize it and almost all understand what it stands for. As far as effective brands, I don't think recent brands are as effective as those in the 1900's. Those brands were much more uplifting and brought out positive, rather than negative feelings.

Branding is very relevant today, especially negative ones. MAGA is the most recent.When I saw a hat bearing the acronym MATA, I asked what it meant. The wearer replied, "Make America Think Again." I liked that thought but am not sure it will happen in the political climate of today.

In the contemporary context, branding remains highly significant. In fact, it has arguably become even more important due to increased competition and the rapid spread of information through digital media. Effective branding can help individuals, businesses, and political entities stand out, establish trust, and connect with their target audiences. www.myccpay.com

Of course, anyone remember the NEW Camelot? Make America Great Again? The Comeback Kid? Or reverse branding--Deplorables? Sleepy Joe? Landslide Lyndon?

Branding is important. Politicians are selling their candidate to the general public. Kennedy’s Camelot comes to mind.Trump is all about branding.