There's been a lot of talk about why politicians use violent rhetoric, and whether it's effective.* Here's a thread with some insights from my book, "Nasty Politics." *Rhetoric can still be effective—1) get attention, 2) coordinate coalitions—but still not be persuasive to the average voter.

They’re not appealing to the average voter. They want to whip-up certain groups who often haven’t been that engaged. And they use the attention to flood social so it’s so often repeated that the negative connotations stick w/more middle of the road people. These races can come down to thin margins.

The book explores the puzzle of nasty politics—why do politicians insult, accuse, and threaten their domestic political opponents if the public generally doesn't like it?