Two interesting points on this I came across recently.
I cannot find it now, but I read an analysis the other week showing just how political the big general interest/lifestyle podcasts had actually become, despite their objections to being referred to as such. If it was just that politics had become interesting enough for all these outlets to talk about it then it would be one thing. But the relevence of the analysis was how little variance there was among the big channels in their perspective and how aligned this was with MAGA and Trump. Rogan is obviously front and center here but itās also places like Lex Friedman, Peterson, even Huberman. Part of their popularity is the claim that they are apoliticalā¦just independent thinkers daring to think for themselves, but what the analysis showed was not only the consistency of thought, but the interconnectedness of the networks. That magnifies the message, but also sends a bat signal out to those trying to make their way up the ladder - if you talk about this stuff and have a good take, weāll have you on extend your reach.
Basically, if you are interested in lifestyle, health and fitness, gaming, crypto, dating, or even just dumb stuff ostensibly designed to just waste your time and make you laugh, the popular podcasts and SM accounts in these spaces are MAGA bullhorns.
The second piece that really surprised me is a recent collection of episodes on the Sixteenth Minute (of fame) podcast about the Hawk Tuah Girl, Haley Welch. https://open.spotify.com/show/5sCioSaEXylfv9CwRW26Cn
This is a series that explores the stories of people who became internet memes. Itās piece on this girl was really good in general, but one of the themes it touched on is the role of online gambling companies in funding the outlets that generate so much of this manosphere content that is driving the culture of the Gen Z and late Milennials. Some of this is difficult to untangle, but there is an obvious grift inherent in this, and I think the main take home if their business model is based on finding suckers, and that explains some of the content that fills these spaces they stand up and fund.
The point of all of this is that our current political culture has in significant part been created by people who arent looking for politics coverage gets their ear holes filled with it anyway, and that delivered by people too ill informed to be of value or who simply dont care what is true. This is what was really being addressed with the conversation of needing a ārogan of the leftā. The issue is not finding a political outlet on the left that people will listen to en masse, but in culturally reclaiming the ostensibly non-political spaces. And until that happens, a significant part of the culture will reject Dems as a viable party because of what some dumb shit like Theo Von said about them.
I dont know what you are trying to say here, but isnāt the message you need to sell them that you are on their side. That is what people have stopped believing about the Dems and that is what the vibe is about. The electorate is dumb. The message that sells is not one that has actionable steps and KPIs all laid out the public can hold them accountable to. It is about the message that gets the vibe in the right place. As you yourself say, its about telling them you are on their side. Trumpās a moron, but his superpower is that enables him to speak moron very authentically. In this election people were still pissed about Covid and its lingering economic and social impacts and Trump very successfully positioned the Dems as not caring about that and putting their focus on paying foreign transsexuals to teach your children about gayness than doing anything about the economy. It doesnt have to be true for it to be a powerful message and it was one the Dems never really fought back against other than to say ānu uhā, āheās worseā, or āthis media environment is very unfair to us that people would believe that about usā
My theory of the case is
no Dem politician will be listened to by enough of the country until the vibe changes.
Thermostatic change will open the door to that
That wont mean much unless Dems find someone who can speak in a way that reclaims the cultural space where people who dont care about politics spend their time.
Success in this area will be far more about rhetoric than policy. That rhetoric will have to be of a clear vision - what you are fighting for and why, not the how. Harrisā home help plan great, but it was not part of a vision you could frame with an āelevator pitchā other than āIm not Trumpā or āIām not Bidenā.
I think at this point we are probably far enough away from either of our original points so I concede much of this isnt exactly rebuttal but just clarification of my thoughts.
Dems need to hire you as the party strategy manager. Post haste!!! Thatās the most coherent annd actionable plan for them to make progress that iāve seen anywhere!
I know this is an overly simplistic take but the slogan āMake America Great Againā alone has probably contributed to his success more than any more substantive issue. Itās a phrase which lets you imagine whatever you want and his supporters have done exactly that.
Democrats currently donāt have a little phrase slogan that inspires anyone. When they try it always comes across as work-shopped corporate crap. As surface-level and shit as that is I think that does play a big part in setting the āvibeā.
Obama is a great speaker, but lets be honest, no one is listening to the actual content of his speech and deciding they really like the policy idea he espoused 14 minutes into his Tuesday afternoon speech in Sioux City. They liked him because when he stood up to speak he gave off the vibe of someone who believed in the āhope and changeā he spoke about. Without hope and change as a slogan he was just a skinny black guy with an Arab name who talked too much.
She twisted herself round and pressed her bosom against him. He could feel her breasts, ripe yet firm, through her overalls. Her body seemed to be pouring some of its youth and vigour into his.
Lunchtime discovery, foreignassistance.gov, the website that provides transparency down to the program level for individual countries for US foreign aid, is no longer functional. Reporting front end is still there, but no longer seems to connect to any data.
While I agree with what youāre saying Iām aware that I am well removed from the details. I think thats where the issue is. People donāt want simple and hood policies anymore, they want X, Y and Z sorted yesterday. They are demanding something different.
I suppose theyāll get that now and might start longing for ānormalā soon enough.
Iām going to start with that I donāt think weāre actually very far apart on the fundamental issues, just that we disagree on what we think the solution is.
This is my entire point. The Democrats are currently looked upon as being very cerebral and therefore out of touch and sanctimonious. The best way is perhaps to stop focusing on swing states, and start a ground up strategy, Dean-style.
How can you combat the image of being out of touch? Itās not by finding a message, because the electorate will see the multiple trial and error efforts and that would rightly be seen as inauthentic, because itās trying to sell something rather than having an authentic idea/belief/set of principles.
Itās about getting your plan to people, to listen to them and show them how your plan will help them individually, to show that you understand their worries and anxieties. I think it makes a difference if they see Harris popping up in a random location in the middle of nowhere, rather than just appearing in staged rallies all the time. If Iām not wrong, for example, that was a strategy that OāRourke used rather well, even though Texas being Texas, he still lost.
