PROMPT: By reading the answers given by 3 different students (see attached documents) UPDATE the answers below AND GIVE CREDIT (cite) to two students that help improve the response below.
NB: Only improve the questions that need and can be improve ( No need to update all the 7 questions)

Most questions are based  on the doc: The Lie Factory(See File Attached)

Question 1: When and why did the era of modern campaign management begin?
The era of modern campaign management began in the early 20th century. This is when campaign managers replaced party bosses and became the ones to forge the direction of the party. In the previous ear, the party bosses would call the shots on different party issues and how they would approach an election. However, this was not a sustainable model. For instance, this sometimes made some places to have a single party. With modern campaign management, the parties would be able to compete equally in the elections.
Question 2: Why did Whitaker argue for more partisanship?
Whitaker felt that there was a need to have more partisanship in the Americas. That is because more partisanship strengthened the ideologies of a party. He felt that the current status quo did not help the parties in becoming stronger. Most of the parties were weak, meaning that the competition in the election was not favorable, thus making some dominant in various regions. However, with more partisanship, the parties would be able to fight equally in an election.
Question 3: Whitaker argued the “The average American doesnt want to be educated; he doesnt want to improve his mind; he doesnt even want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen,  For Whitaker what were the two ways you could get Americans interested in a campaign?
According to Whitaker, the two ways that one could get the Americans interested in a campaign is by putting on a show and giving it a fight. By fighting, it means that the party leaders will engage in a challenge that every party will sell their ideologies to the population. This would help the people to engage in a conversation, where the party with the best ideologies would win the fight. Besides, putting on a show would make the party memorable. This means that more people would follow a campaign based on how different parties put on a show in the campaign time. For instance, having celebrities performing before the party sells its ideologies  to the multitude.
Question 4: Who retained Whitaker and Baxter to fight Gov. Warren’s comprehensive compulsory health insurance for the state of California?  What tactics did Whitaker and Baxter employ?
The California Medical Association retained Whitaker and Baxter to fight Gov. Warrens health insurance. The conflict between the governor and the two had begun after the governor fired them from their posts in the California government after his election. The California medical association retained them for an annual fee of twenty-five thousand dollars. The tactics they used was to have a drive that would allow the California citizens to purchase their own private insurance covers. Additionally, they used doctors to be able to achieve their objective. They would have the doctors go to the citizens with prepared speeches, which would help to convince the citizens. Additionally, they would use newspapers, which was the common mainstream media at the time.
Question 5: When did the era of pretesting public opinion to tailor candidate positions begin?
The era of pretesting public opinion to tailor a candidate position began in the time that Whitaker and Baxter were fighting with Gov. Warren. This is where they would evaluate the publics opinion on a specific issue before they make a specific position. The pretesting of public opinion also helps candidates to know how they will approach the citizens to campaign for a specific issue.
Question 6: What is the import, purpose, and consequence of individuated subjective appeals in political messaging?  How do these subjective appeals undermine democracy and what role has the internet and social media played in further weaponizing these appeals?
A subjective appeal is an appeal to the public based on the opinion of the person making it. A subjective appeal is supposed to make a group of people to subscribe to the opinion of the person and vacate their own perception of an issue. This means that if it is successful, people will subscribe to that opinion. For instance, a subjective appeal by a party will make the citizens subscribe to the ideologies. This might make a society a one-party state. This means that it will undermine democracy by weakening the other parties.
Question 7: Lastly, what if anything can be done to make voters more interested in evidence-based decision-making and policy arguments? And more interested in taking on the obligations of being informed and publicly minded citizens?  Are these goals even worth pursuing?
There are various ways that citizens could be made interested in evidence-based decision making. According to the article, voters are lazy and do not want to exert any effort. To make them interested in evidence-based decision making, they will have to be sensitized on the need to explore all the options. This helps make them understand how various parties operate. Additionally, they will evaluate all the ideologies. The goals are worth pursuing because they help in strengthening democracy.