Yes. And that's due to Trump knew his audiences well.
His jargons connect. Whether you like it or not
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yes. And that's due to Trump knew his audiences well.
His jargons connect. Whether you like it or not
Podcasts are simply relayers of information in the new media environment, so of course, going on the most popular ones gets a candidates message out to a broader swath of people.
I can't vote for him, I'm in the UK.
But i have watched the fallout, I don't understand the idea of "the [insert colour here] vote" people are people we are complex.
Yes it has. At least people on the left very clearly hold their politicians to a higher standard. A clear example is how people are attacking the Democrats for not having a stronger stance against Israel for their invasion of Gaza. Meanwhile Trump has many times said he backs Israel to "finish the job" and that the Democrats are even "too weak". But really it doesn't matter what Trump says... on anything. The Right will just coalesce around him and either cheer him on or sweep whatever he said under the "he didn't mean that" carpet, if they even bother to address it at all.
And even you're doing it, in this very post. You're saying that the Dems ran their campaign through a lens of privilege not really addressing or caring enough about the core issues of food & gas prices. This is despite the Democratic administration navigating the mayhem of the last few years (Ukraine War, COVID) better than any other Western nation, from an economic standpoint. America is comparatively, doing better than anyone else. Meanwhile Trump, against all economic advice, is speaking about tariffs and trade wars. Which if implemented will have disastrous effects, with retaliatory tariffs and high inflation all around. The only ones who get to win are certain billionaires who will see theirs industries protected.
But are you talking about that? No. You're bypassing everything Trump says, insulating him from any criticism, while only focusing on how the Dems have not done enough on this issue.
It would have been nice to hear either candidate actually talk about their plans in a specific way, but I guess few governments around the world actually do that to great effect anyway.
Unfortunately true. The GOP is actively sabotaging public education.
Handbags at dawn. Kernan is a big Trump supporter btw.
I agree with you on this. Precisely for the same reason I agree that the Dems scapegoating Arab voters in Michigan is ludicrous, firstly for the sheer sense of entitlement that a group of people should vote for them out of obligation, but also the insinuation that these ethnic groups are some sort of homogenised hive mind that aren't capable of having their own unique collection of opinions and principles.
This is not 'higher' standards though, just different ones. Republicans support his position on Israel. They think he means it.
Hardly surprising or new that communicating to a lot of people through relevant media helps get you elected.
People that say Kamala had all these policies and Trump had no policy I think are missing the point. Trump articulated a very simple vision: closed borders/tough on immigration, tariffs, and no transwomen in female sports. Kamala might have had long winded policies but she never articulated an actual vision which allowed Trump's team to define one for her - open borders, sex change operations for prisoners, and high inflation.
She made the same mistake as Hilary and arguably Kerry and Gore. Coming off like a policy wonk will never win elections in the social media punchline era. You need to articulate a simple vision that the lowest common denominator can easily understand. Trump did this and also defined an anti-vision for Kamala. She simply can't communicate efficiently, its all this long winded lawyerly building a case style which I said after her Fox interview and it simply won't work in the contemporary era. People that run GOP campaigns come from the business world and they understand marketing. The Dems consistently fail to understand this. They need to completely clean house, all institutional Dem leadership needs to be completely replaced with a new generation that understands these basic things.
She made the same mistake as Hilary and arguably Kerry and Gore. Coming off like a policy wonk will never win elections in the social media punchline era. You need to articulate a simple vision that the lowest common denominator can easily understand. Trump did this and also defined an anti-vision for Kamala. She simply can't communicate efficiently, its all this long winded lawyerly building a case style which I said after her Fox interview and it simply won't work in the contemporary era. People that run GOP campaigns come from the business world and they understand marketing. The Dems consistently fail to understand this. They need to completely clean house, all institutional Dem leadership needs to be completely replaced with a new generation that understands these basic things.
I don't deny that they are more heavily criticized but I don't think somebody who votes for the Democrats because of their progressive policies on gender fluidity, LGBTQ questions and so forth would suddenly vote for Trump because a Democratic campaign emphasizes other issues more.
Moreover, I'm fully aware that the Democratic policies are much better for the working class than whatever Trump is going to do and that they voted against their interests. And I agree that they the Biden administration handled the crises very well based on my admittedly very limited knowledge. And in an ideal world this would receive the praise it deserves but we aren't living in an ideal world. Instead, human beings are very selective in what information they process and for the goal of being elected, presenting what you did/plan to do in a favorable light is more important than the actual quality of your work. I'd even say in some cases it is a hindrance if you actually did a good job because you're too focused to get across what was so brillant about the stuff you did when your audience isn't interested in the details.
And that's pretty much what Trump did. Everybody with a little bit of economic knowledge is fully aware that Democratic policies would lead to much more favorable outcomes from a working class perspective. But Trump knows that his audience isn't interested in logically understanding why his policies would make their situation better. In such cases, very basic instruments of convincing people like repitition ("Trump is going to fix it") reputation ("I'm a billionaire business man who makes deals") and tapping into their own experiences ("wasn't it better when I was president?") work wonders. And from an outside perspective, I don't see how the Democrats utilized the same tools to this extent. Even in Germany it was impossible to overhear that Trump wants to improve the economy. Harris on the other hand was a blank page with only the abortion topic being comparably present.
Not against its former self... that's what voters who live 'pay check to pay check' take onboard and make comparisons with. Yes, there was Covid, War in Ukraine etc., all affecting the economy, but people who are effectively living hand to mouth expect their President/government to 'do something' about protecting them, that's what Trump said he would do... and if he doesn't, well he won't be standing next time will he?
This election in a nutshell
Gotta love how Stephen A critiques everything in life as if its an MJ v LeBron goat debate.
The team from Americast, were on the radio yesterday talking about how the dems were confident in their GOTV ground game, but flopped entirely on social media, Trump posts racked up millions of views and were really clear on immigration and the economy, but the Harris ones were more often than not feel good montages with no clear message. Obama changed the online election game in 2008, but Trump's team have seemingly stepped it up again and the dems felt quite old fashioned online.
They also mentioned going on output like Rogan exposed him to an audience that Harris never came close to reaching.
Completely agree here.
Just to add, simple messages that connect with people are not something a social media era only. It has been always like that. Most people are not policy junks who spend hours reading and analyzing policies. People remember 'Yes, we can' from Obama, they didn't read his policies before the election. And it has been always like this.
So yeah, 'lower inflation, improve the economy, close the border' connects better than 'you stupid, the inflation is already at 2% which is what the economists want, you are just too ignorant to understand that' while people are genuinely struggling.
I've been following US politics since about 2010. GOP primaries have taken off several incumbent senior House reps. Internal factional fighting has killed multiple speakers.
Most importantly, 2016 was a wholesale rejection of a full dozen people who the party elites wanted and funded to be president - Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker were all big names and were being pushed by the party and by Fox. Well, when the base had its say, they rejected them all by massive margins.
You may not think of these as "standards" - but it's clear that the GOP base draws a line and disciplines its leadership. Even this 2024 primary was very loud and rancorous, with party elites and Fox trying to push RDS, before the base very clearly said no, we love Trump.
What about the Democrats? The last time they went against the party elite's choice was 2008, and Obama went out of his way to make the establishment comfortable with him. Since then, the chosen candidates Hillary, Biden, and Biden/Kamala were approved of strongly by the base, on the explicit argument of "electability". They happily give up their policy preferences if the leadership and media tell them it will lose the general election. They even chose Biden this time around while it was increasingly apparent that he wasn't all there. They're far more loyal to their leadership than the GOP. And this also applied to the primaries - they have had nothing equivalent to the Tea Party wave killing their incumbents. The only big one was AOC. (The rest of the squad won open primaries with no incumbents).
And from what I've read, this is not a new thing for the GOP, but they've had a conservative base that has been resentful of the party elites (at that time, the North-Eastern establishment) since the 40s, when liberal Republicans were chosen as presidential candidates in favour of conservatives. And that antagonistic relationship between the base and the party has persisted. While, the actual Democratic base - the primary voters - have been in sync with their establishment for a long while now. The 2016 and especially 2020 Bernie voters fell quietly in line.
A bit simplified, but obviously getting your message out there and making voters think of you as a good candidate is important. Joe Rogan's influence on young men is quite powerful - and for the most part conservative viewers/listeners don't pay much attention to main stream news or liberal leaning sources.
She avoided these outlet because she doesn't usually come across as in control in these interviews, unlike Pete and Newsom. But then 40% of the country has no idea who you are and what you stand for. Young men was very gettable this election cycle. Trump's approval rating among young men all over the world soared after his appearance on Rogan.
With Supreme Court ruling that Trump can do whatever the feck he likes and the public democratically electing him despite all the shit he has already done and more importantly - what he has already told everyone he is going to do - there feels like a bit of an uncomfortably silent atmosphere from the media now. Almost like his corruption has been given a mandate and there isn’t really an argument against it anymore.
Trump made almost unprecedented gains among black and hispanic voters.
What a prick.."you'll live off this for another four years". The mooch is worth like $90 mil, Joe.
it's the same with women and abortion, and how they're basically reduced to that single topic. after all, no decent woman could possibly not vote for Kamala, right? in reality, there could be plenty of reasons why a certain woman decided she doesn't like Kamala.
perhaps that woman is a mother as well and is aware of murdered women and children in Gaza, so she couldn't support a candidate who believes something like genocide can be shrugged off with a smile. or perhaps she doesn't like the idea of her daughters racing and competing against biological males in the future. perhaps she's struggling with the costs of living and doesn't see Kamala's team as someone who's capable of changing that. or, you know, a woman could simply like the other candidate more regardless of who that is. all those things could be just as important to a certain woman as abortion.
they will never admit it, but "lefties" more often than end up being bigger frauds than the side they're attacking for their "backwards" views. I've seen posters in Acolyte and Rings of Power threads saying there's a good chance that those who don't like the mentioned shows are simply racists and hate them because of the diverse cast without mods giving a shit about that. but somehow it's Trump and his supporters that bring dangerous and confrontational rhetoric or whatever they call it
as I've said before, it's a funny thread.
The data at a snapshot is showing that Trump gained voters in Muslim areas. They didn't go to Stein that much. Would need better analysis but that's what I saw at a glance.
So what can the Dems do about it?
Create a policy platform and run a good communicator of it so they don't wind up in the top right quadrant again. Something closer to where Clinton (Bill that is) ran on in 92 and 96.
TBH I dont think policy matters that much. Trump economic policy is garbage and he won. Dems need someone with charisma. Someone who can work up a crowd and get people excited. And someone who is authentic. Shapiro if he wants to run needs to drop the Obama gimmick asap. I think voters will see through that. I don't know who of the current Dem governors and senators is that guy. Or maybe Michelle gets fed up and decides to run in 2028. She's an equally great speaker as Obama. And she is not a politician. If there's a Democratic woman who has a chance to be president, its her.
She is not as a good speaker as Obama. And she is part of the elite by being the first lady for 8 years. Dems desperately need to move away from Obama-Clinton-Biden era. It was a good run, with 20 years of presidency, but it won't win the next election.
Similar to how no one would have guessed that Obama will be the nominee in 2008, the ideal case is that no one now can guess who will be the candidate in 2028. I think the best choices right now are Shapiro or Whitmer, but hopefully there are more good candidates (I do not particularly like Newsom, but he is by far the best speaker Dems have).
It definitely should not be someone who has been long in DC. People hate the congress, and in general governors tend to do better in elections than senators.
NB: This stands only if economy does not massively improve. If he does (and let's be fair, economy was great under Trump before covid), it probably won't matter whom Dems choose. As the saying goes 'It is the economy, stupid'.
Yup. When Bush was perceived as being out of touch with the struggles of the common man, what was the slogan that carried Clinton's campaign? "It's the economy, stupid!" Simple, precise and easily digestible.
Copycat
The question is 'will Trump feck up the economy', and if that happens, 'will Dems be able to successfully exploit that'.
it's the same with women and abortion, and how they're basically reduced to that single topic. after all, no decent woman could possibly not vote for Kamala, right? in reality, there could be plenty of reasons why a certain woman decided she doesn't like Kamala.
perhaps that woman is a mother as well and is aware of murdered women and children in Gaza, so she couldn't support a candidate who believes something like genocide can be shrugged off with a smile. or perhaps she doesn't like the idea of her daughters racing and competing against biological males in the future. perhaps she's struggling with the costs of living and doesn't see Kamala's team as someone who's capable of changing that. or, you know, a woman could simply like the other candidate more regardless of who that is. all those things could be just as important to a certain woman as abortion.
they will never admit it, but "lefties" more often than end up being bigger frauds than the side they're attacking for their "backwards" views. I've seen posters in Acolyte and Rings of Power threads saying there's a good chance that those who don't like the mentioned shows are simply racists and hate them because of the diverse cast without mods giving a shit about that. but somehow it's Trump and his supporters that bring dangerous and confrontational rhetoric or whatever they call it
as I've said before, it's a funny thread.
That's cognitive dissonances at work.
I think they are all a bit shell shocked.
No one saw Obama coming, let's hope something like that happens with a blue collar salt of the earth candidate. That would be nice.
it's the same with women and abortion, and how they're basically reduced to that single topic. after all, no decent woman could possibly not vote for Kamala, right? in reality, there could be plenty of reasons why a certain woman decided she doesn't like Kamala.
perhaps that woman is a mother as well and is aware of murdered women and children in Gaza, so she couldn't support a candidate who believes something like genocide can be shrugged off with a smile. or perhaps she doesn't like the idea of her daughters racing and competing against biological males in the future. perhaps she's struggling with the costs of living and doesn't see Kamala's team as someone who's capable of changing that. or, you know, a woman could simply like the other candidate more regardless of who that is. all those things could be just as important to a certain woman as abortion.
they will never admit it, but "lefties" more often than end up being bigger frauds than the side they're attacking for their "backwards" views. I've seen posters in Acolyte and Rings of Power threads saying there's a good chance that those who don't like the mentioned shows are simply racists and hate them because of the diverse cast without mods giving a shit about that. but somehow it's Trump and his supporters that bring dangerous and confrontational rhetoric or whatever they call it
as I've said before, it's a funny thread.
Why is it always culture wars and this weird fixation with transgender? Refering to immigrants as "Poisoning the blood of our country" is rhetorically quite a bit more extreme than "dude doesn't like my show, so he's probably racist".
The first point wasn't even half bad - yes Democrats took a lot of votes for granted, and that was quite stupid.
black and hispanic men*
In case people haven't noticed we are in the midst of a gender war, especially among the youth misandry and misogyny is increasingly rampant at a time we are trying to figure out what it even means to be a man or a woman in society.
Seriously if you spend any amount of time at all on the internet you shouldn't be shocked men flocked to the republicans its far more important than race, like why on earth would a man vote for a party that at best ignores you and at worst will demonize you? Case in point the "Men for Harris" ad, there was never a point that they talked about male issues, it was only ever about men caring about womens issues, which just isn't realistic.
Video, some swearing.
That's a good point, having an easy-to-understand vision goes back before the social media era.
Michelle Obama should be a non-starter at this point. Need fresh perspectives and people.
The more I hear Shapiro, the more I dislike him and think he'd be a poor candidate. He comes off too phony to me, like an entitled kid who spent his Friday nights in law school listening to Obama speeches and staring into a mirror trying to copy him. I also don't like that he's so pro-Israel either.
Picking out absurd views from someone on the left (calling anything racist / sexist / bigoted) vs the entire core ideology of the right (racist / sexist / bigoted)it's the same with women and abortion, and how they're basically reduced to that single topic. after all, no decent woman could possibly not vote for Kamala, right? in reality, there could be plenty of reasons why a certain woman decided she doesn't like Kamala.
perhaps that woman is a mother as well and is aware of murdered women and children in Gaza, so she couldn't support a candidate who believes something like genocide can be shrugged off with a smile. or perhaps she doesn't like the idea of her daughters racing and competing against biological males in the future. perhaps she's struggling with the costs of living and doesn't see Kamala's team as someone who's capable of changing that. or, you know, a woman could simply like the other candidate more regardless of who that is. all those things could be just as important to a certain woman as abortion.
they will never admit it, but "lefties" more often than end up being bigger frauds than the side they're attacking for their "backwards" views. I've seen posters in Acolyte and Rings of Power threads saying there's a good chance that those who don't like the mentioned shows are simply racists and hate them because of the diverse cast without mods giving a shit about that. but somehow it's Trump and his supporters that bring dangerous and confrontational rhetoric or whatever they call it
as I've said before, it's a funny thread.