From a US perspective, I feel pretty comfortable in speaking for a lot of people by saying that we know that 98% of it is a dog and pony show.

Like, we know "this message" wasn't actually written by the candidate. We know the candidate probably isn't "deeply concerned" about the exact issue that matters to us.

There's a pretty broad feeling of inauthenticity about most political campaigns (again, in a primarily US context) but that's not to say that people would respond well to the opposite (put a pin in that though.)

I think a great example was Obama's promise to close Guantanamo Bay. I think most people were savvy enough to realize that that probably wasn't going to happen. A draw down or some other scaling back of our use of the base, sure, but the idea that we'd just...shut it down wasn't one that most serious people accepted as a realistic outcome. But the fact that the promise was made was actually worth something because it showed a certain willingness to take the issue seriously.

The complete lack of follow through on it, even to come out and say "Yeah we wanted to do this but the issue is more complex than we'd bargained for and it's not something we're going to be able to deliver on," was kind of a sting for a lot of people (myself included.)

As voters we expect politicians to over-promise and under-deliver, that's the norm, but when you over-promise and never deliver, that's a much bigger problem. At that point the performative aspects of campaigns start to feel more belittling. It starts to feel like we're just getting keys jangled in our faces to keep us focused on issues that there are zero plans to do anything about and that leads to pretty strong dissatisfaction because people feel like they're being talked down to.

That's part of Trump's appeal (back to that pin.) Setting aside, y'know, everything, Trump talked very directly to voters in very plain, easy to understand language and made concrete, direct promises on actual plans of action. Now, sure, most of those promises weren't realistic, he kept almost none of them, and he ignored most of the plans he ever made but part of what energized his base was people saying "This is someone who is speaking directly to us and telling us what he's going to do."

A lot of campaigns have a tendency to fall back on weasel words and vague language to obfuscate the fact that they either have no plans or they want to be able to call whatever they're able to get done "the plan" despite the fact that it was miles short of what voters wanted. After a while, you kinda start to feel like a child being talked to by their parents in this kind of coded, euphemistic language that you know they're only using because they think you don't understand.

I think no campaign has really tapped into the potential of a genuine mea culpa. Republicans are allergic to it for obvious reasons and Democrats tend to go for more gaslighting tactics when something isn't fulfilled there's a tendency to blame someone who's upset that they really just didn't understand.

That's very popular right now with people who are critical of Biden, even among his supporters and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

No campaign has really ever, on a consistent basis, flat out said "We weren't able to deliver on this because of XYZ reasons." There's a desire to just never be seen to be wrong or having made a mistake that causes people to adopt this kind of blindspot to the mistakes political figures and campaigns make.

Clinton's 2016 campaign was a great example. She was having a pretty clear series of health problems along the campaign, including video of her having to be helped into a vehicle. Nobody knew exactly what was happening but it was clear she was struggling.

That was a perfect opportunity to say "I'm 70 and keeping the schedule of a college student. Yes, it's taking a bit out of me but this is how hard I work because I believe in what I'm doing and I believe it's worth it. I would rather be tired and know that I'm giving my job my all to help people than relax and take it easy. Donald doesn't seem to be tired and that's great, I'm glad he's able to get so much relaxation when he's asking you to give him the most important job in the world."

But instead the campaign just insisted everything was fine and there was no problems and any insinuation to the opposite was defeatism. Voters don't like that.

Campaigns also tend to have this weird split consciousness about what people will and won't accept in the sense that they understand that certain voters are not going to defect and so it's ok to ignore some issues but they also seem to think that that principle is absolutely ironclad and that nothing can convince their base to stay home.

For instance, if your biggest issue is gun control, a Democratic campaign knows they don't have to do a ton on gun control to keep your vote. Just make a few noises, support a piece of legislation that has no chance of passing, and call it good. You're certainly not going to vote Republican so as long as they can convince you that voting is the single most important thing you can do, they've probably got your vote without having to do anything on gun control.

And, for the most part, they're right. You're probably not going to vote Republican or third party so as long as you keep believing that it's important to vote, you're going to vote Democrat.

Where things start to come off the rails is when campaigns start applying this principle to everything. Doing anything costs political capital, it's risky, and it could backfire which is why the response to a lot of political issues by politicians tends to be a lot of talking out of both sides of their mouths - it's safer not to take a hard stance unless it's crystal clear where your electorate and your benefactors are. Inaction is safe so if you convince your base that voting for anyone else but you guarantees that the world falls apart, you've kinda got it made in the sense that you don't really have to do anything or stand for anything and nothing will make your base desert you.

Republicans have gotten to find out why that's a dangerous tactic because then someone like Trump comes in who promises a fraction of an inch of movement and, despite it being blindingly obvious that he's a profligate liar and wildly incompetent, people flock to him because they'd rather go with the guy who seems like he might get something done despite being an absolute hot mess express of a human being.

The second someone breaks ranks and can't be just buried by the weight of political inertia of establishment politics, you've got a problem because now you've got a base that's energized and wants action and is mad at you because you're not doing anything.