The election gets closer by the day, and in the spirit of this massive event that penetrates everyone’s thoughts and conversations and only happens once every four years…
I figured it was as good a time as any to make my prediction.
I don’t think Kamala can win (without vast and frankly disturbing amounts of voting fraud and cheating).
And it’s not for the reasons you may think.
Sure, she’s the opposite of charming, which is mayhap the single most important skill a politician needs to have.
Sure, her voice and cackle are some of the most cringeworthy and unlikeable noises you’ll hear from a human mouth.
And sure, she knows her policies about as well as Tim Walz knows his wife’s mouth (if’n you don’t know, it’s routine for Tim to greet his wife not with a kiss, but with a … handshake).
It’s for something much deeper than this. And it’s something that anyone who wants to learn how to write better, more persuasive, and more engaging copy ought to learn from too.
Here’s what I mean:
Despite the blind supporters of “short copy” who take it too far and think that any email over 250 words is too long to get read and bought from, they have a point.
Kinda.
When it comes to writing, there are two main schools, the way I see it:
The public school way, where you try to fit as many useless words into a sentence, paragraph, and paper to reach the arbitrary word count assigned by your teacher.
And then there’s the business school way where you go out of your way to be short and succinct.
In the world of persuasive writing, the business way is superior. But Kamala talks in the public school way. In fact, I’ve never heard someone utter so many words without saying anything. It’s actually a skill she has—and something which I imagine would be important in a courtroom, but not when it comes to winning over the minds and souls of voters.
And that’s where these “short copy is better” charlatans come from. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Short copy is better if you’re not good at writing.
But when you are good, then, well, you can add the “weave” like Trump does—something we discussed a coupla days ago.
Anyway, what’s the copywriting sin that will prevent Kamala from the presidency?
She says a lot without saying anything.
Even though I break the rules more here on my personal email list, one of the best ways to write tighter, more persuasive, more emotional copy is by going through, line by line, and figuring out which sentences are actually needed and which can be sent to the digital abyss of deletion.
Every sentence in the world of copy needs to be justified. It needs to move the reader one step closer to a decision. And the best copy forces its readers to read the following sentence—even against their will.
Kamala’s word vomits don’t do this. They’re the exact opposite of it. Not only do they make her look like a liar (Trump’s racist for supporting the wall even though I do now), but they also make her look like a buffoon (what can be unburdened by what has been).
Kamala’s a drunk wine mom in other words—not someone who has dedicated her life to learning how to become as persuasive as possible.
This is also something Trump’s naturally skilled at. He wrote The Art of the Deal after all.
But word vomits aren’t, by their very nature, persuasive. They’re anti-persuasive.
And the more Kamala talks, the more she shoots herself in the foot. Not good if’n you want to win an election—even if you’re promising a bunch of free shyt to a whole bunch of people.
Moral of the story?
Writing in the exact opposite way of how Kamala talks is a great starting point for writing more persuasive, engaging, and profitable copy.
If’n you need my help doing this for your business, hit reply, and let’s set up a call.
John
Comments