ABSTRACT
While rhetoricians, democratic theorists, philosophical purists and others may object to the characterization, for the strategist substantive argumentation is often tangential and actual content peripheral to the truly essential decisions regarding the persuasion of individuals. Far more important is an understanding of why and how such persons of interest to the campaign hold the attitudes, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, and expectations that they do, and by what mechanisms these diverse elements can be accessed and infl uenced. From a purely strategic standpoint, if one understands the psychological dynamics that generate and maintain these states and that govern their projection into the campaign setting, one can then shape the content of campaign communications to exploit these tendencies. Argumentation and content, then, are often best understood not as the essence of persuasion, but rather as the pre-screened and carefully structured packaging that draws targeted individuals to engage with the campaign so that more fundamental persuasive elements, intended to take advantage of underlying psychological structures and processes, can be conveyed effectively.
