Feelings First, Facts Later: The Emotional Lock-In Strategy in Modern Campaigns

As a communications professional—and a longtime student of human behavior—I’ve been highly (possibly obsessively) intrigued by the campaigns unfolding in our mayoral race, particularly those that have been very frontstreet long before official campaign season kicked into high gear.

What fascinates me most in modern campaigns isn’t actually the candidate—it’s the voter behavior that forms around them.

That’s why I’ve been closely watching the campaign and supporters surrounding Marie Feagins. The dynamic feels familiar. Not identical, but reminiscent of the early Donald Trump campaign—where visibility preceded vetting, enthusiasm outpaced information, and loyalty formed well before scrutiny.

A lively outdoor market showcasing diverse products and engaging customers.

You can usually spot this pattern early.

Supporters are deeply enthusiastic but noticeably light on specifics. Ask what they like, and the answers gravitate toward presence, personality, and visibility—not experience, policy, or record. Questions feel unwelcome. Skepticism is labeled as negativity. Criticism isn’t debated; it’s defended against.

That’s not because these voters are uninformed or unserious. It’s because effective marketing and branding change how people process information. When branding works really well, it doesn’t just persuade—it reorders priorities. Feeling comes first. Evaluation comes later…if it comes at all.

This isn’t accidental. It’s a recognizable persuasion model.

And because everything sounds smarter once it has a name, I’m calling it:

The Emotional Lock-In Strategy

This strategy builds loyalty early—emotionally and socially—so that by the time scrutiny should begin, it already feels unnecessary, uncomfortable, or even hostile.

1. Feel First. Think Later.

Behavioral science tells us that emotion plays a starring role in political judgment. The Affect Heuristic explains that when we feel positively about someone, we instinctively see them as more competent and less risky.

In plain English:If the vibe is right, the details feel optional.

That’s why visuals do so much heavy lifting. Constant photos. Public moments. Being “in the community.” These cues establish warmth and trust long before facts enter the chat.

2. Turn Support into Identity

Once emotional buy-in exists, identity isn’t far behind.

Social Identity Theory shows that when people see themselves as part of a group, they begin protecting it. Information that supports the group is welcomed. Information that challenges it is dismissed as biased or hostile.

This is where “us vs. them” framing becomes powerful. Supporters stop evaluating claims independently and start defending the team. Neutral questions feel aggressive. Skeptics feel disloyal.

This framework powered early Trump-era messaging:

• Create a strong in-group

• Cast institutions, media, or critics as outsiders

• Frame scrutiny as an attack

Once that frame sticks, facts aren’t weighed—they’re filtered by source.

3. Repeat Until Familiar Feels True

Then comes repetition.

The Illusory Truth Effect shows that the more often people hear something, the more likely they are to believe it—accuracy notwithstanding. Familiarity breeds comfort. Comfort breeds acceptance.

That’s why campaigns using this strategy don’t slow down to explain. They flood feeds, timelines, and conversations. Supporters echo the message within their own networks, reinforcing it socially.

At that point, the campaign isn’t persuading—it’s surrounding.

4. Sell Belonging, Not Policy

The final layer is belonging.

Being acknowledged by a candidate feels personal. Being part of a movement feels meaningful. That emotional payoff often outweighs the desire for specifics. Moments like “She said my name” carry more weight than policy papers because they reinforce identity: I’m part of this.

Why This Matters

From a communications standpoint, the Emotional Lock-In Strategy is effective. It’s disciplined. It understands people.

From a civic standpoint, it weakens how we make collective decisions.

When loyalty is secured emotionally, curiosity becomes optional. Voters stop asking why and start asking only who’s with us. And once politics becomes identity, scrutiny feels like betrayal instead of responsibility.

Good branding can win attention. But good governance requires something harder: the willingness to pause, question, and think—even when the vibes are strong.

RAE Quick Take

We encourage reading the full article—context matters. But for those short on time (or patience), this is the quick, clear version of what the piece is actually saying. That said, the full read is worth it. Details change understanding—and skipping them means you’re missing something.