Comment: I agree with your premise, but

(See in situ)

I agree with your premise, but

I think you miss the other side. While fear does motivate people, I think there's another way that can get people behind a change. Incentive, as I've found, is even better. i.e. Carrots work better than sticks.

Instead of saying, "If Robomney is elected, there will be scorched earth type apocalypse...", we can say, "If Ron Paul is elected, 80% of the wealth of the banksters would be returned to the hands of the masses. This would effectively raise wages across the board by 4 times while prices would probably drop."

Then, it's an easy sell to show how a population with 8 times the wealth in the hands of the people would not be concerned with petty issues such as charity, welfare, private health care without insurance, school loans, small business loans, local school budgets, and even more extreme things like private police forces or private roads, etc.

Think of it this way, study after study has found that the level of donations to charity (as a % of disposable income) goes up, proportional to how poor someone is. In short, the poor donate more than the rich, compared to what they can. What would our world look like if a part time, minimum wage job paid the equivalent of today's master plumbers?

However, what we've been given in the way of a message is only the stick part. "The banks are robbing us." "The banks and corporations have bought off the rules of the game." Nothing is ever said of what would materialize should we eliminate that robbery. No one ever says that this robbery constitutes 4/5ths of our hard earned wages. No one is out there with the message that candidate X or Y will put that money back in our pocket.