Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Voidwalkin]

Kamala Harris ditched Joe Rogan podcast interview over progressive backlash fears

Decision seen as major blunder for campaign that lost male votes to Donald Trump

www.ft.com

Rumors Harris didn't do Rogan because some staffers felt it'd upset progesssives.

 

[Angst]

Kamala Harris ditched Joe Rogan podcast interview over progressive backlash fears

Decision seen as major blunder for campaign that lost male votes to Donald Trump

www.ft.com

Rumors Harris didn't do Rogan because some staffers felt it'd upset progesssives.

i saw news on this too. particular article is paywalled, but i saw stuff on this elsewhere.

so anyways. been thinking a bit about it. so some shower thoughts on what happened here.

whether this would truly upset the progressives, i don't think so. i think progressives cared more about abortion/"hardline" immigration policy/cheneys/gaza than harris being featured on any particular outlet. nobody blinks at her appearing on fox news. for her base, the fact that she's willing to go into the lion's den is probably a good thing. (rogan is not fox no, but a lion's den he is, irt who his listeners are)

i think it's still dems stuck in the 90s. lots of the campaign staff and strategy is still too clintonian, just has a progressive tint with piecemeal policy that progressives like.

i wonder who the staffers are, and what their data has shown them here (and what it says irt bias). so i'm trying to wrap my head around this discrepancy; fox is fine, rogan is not. then it's a question of legitimacy of the outlet in question. fox is fine to appear on, since while they're arguably more insane than rogan, they're "real" news, they're powerful, should be respected, and should be appeared on if it can be arranged. rogan is not legitimate, he's not on "real" TV, and then i guess the staffers' idea is that you help legitimizing an illegitimate media outlet that's been helping the right recently? and that would make people mad?

this is all a bunch of leaps of analysis, if my musings is what's going on. but i do think it's a huge issue. dems are just concretely worse at being flexible and using newer forms of mass media. walz is good at it (walz was a massive boon for the campaign, i will die on that hill, and he had a clear line between concrete results, memeability and being the midwesternest of dads; that he wasn't aggressive enough at the debate was the only real flaw i could identify; anyways point is that he used social media in a kindhearted dad-like way, which i thought was excellent); bernie is good at it, aoc is good at it. incidentally, bernie did show up on rogan, but what i remember most about it was people panicking about optics in the same way they do about harris here. the real issue is that bluntly irt swing voters and garnering engagement, fox is just not relevant anymore. rogan is. the media share he has is massive, and his base is specifically the kind of people the dems have a hard time getting airtime with anyways.

basically, my assumptions are -
- rogan is seen by them as illegitimate by the staff in some way
- they understand that progressives (often) understand that legitimizing a bad illegitimate outlet is poor optics
- therefore appearing on rogan would alienate the vote (even if outrage is not the same as keeping people from the polls)
(and again these are guesswork and i'm free to being corrected)
and if that's actually the case -
- rogan, whether i and others like it or not, is de facto a real outlet now. you can't on a practical level pretend it isn't.
- the idea was to sidestep the issue on this particular outlet and do fox instead because i guess they thought everyone understands fox is Big and Necessary to speak on? i'm not sure that's as true anymore, is the issue.

so: the clintonian path doesn't work anymore. and this extends to some of the strategy. the idea that appearing on fox is enough is not true anymore. podcasts are actually great. noone - or noone relevant to the turnout - watches tv news anymore. stop appearing on fox (or, like, do, for optics). appear on rogan. appear on stuff like this - maybe not as a presidential candidate i guess, but people should understand my general point here. i don't want to go full millenial on this and claim it's because they don't know how to internet per se, because they did try and go quite active there; but there's doing your own youtube channel stuff, and then there's appearing on joe rogan.

of course they may also just be correct that appearing on joe rogan would lose progressive votes. i just don't really see it though. if they didn't have those because of optics, the optics were lost after cheney stuff.

 

[Estebonrober]

Kamala Harris ditched Joe Rogan podcast interview over progressive backlash fears

Decision seen as major blunder for campaign that lost male votes to Donald Trump

www.ft.com

Rumors Harris didn't do Rogan because some staffers felt it'd upset progesssives.

It does upset progressives; they like to pretend they are not in a nation that is on the brink of pulling a horsehockey ton of people out of their homes and putting them in camps. So, Rogan upsets progressives, the left knows they are surrounded by people who believe they want to put all their undesirables into mass graves even if 99% of them do not understand the scale of stupid they are contemplating... the distinction is how and why we got here. The distinction is super important, progressives (this usage of the term anyways) are liberals who just have not been cut yet... as soo as they are, they will be hushing up and going along with the camps... you are seeing that happen in slow motion right now.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hasn't the "resigned so you can't release the report" been a trick used by sleazy democrats and republicans for a long time?
I seem to remember a scandal back in the Obama days of some long-time Democrat congresscritter taking envelopes of money for kickbacks and favored treatment, but resigned before the House could officially release their report.

Beats me. Doesn't ring a bell. If you can find an article about it, I'd love to read it.

Well depends if they vomit up another outbof touch establishment liberal type they're screwed.

If they run a populist economy first type that's not a raving loon on social issues and immigration they have a chance.

I think its simpler than that. Candidates people like have the best chance to win. If Harris had to run in a primary she would have lost to someone the voters liked more. That person would have had a better chance in the election. Ultimately, it boils down the candidate and how much people like them, not any specific policies, or specific messaging, or specific issues. AOC's post election survey of voters that voted for both her and Trump shed some light on that. Obama won because people liked him, Baby Bush won because people thought he was more likeable than the opponents he was against. Trump won because people hated his first opponent and knew/liked him better than his second opponent. Biden won because people liked him better and were sick of Trump.

For the Democrats to win the next presidential election, they need to find a candidate that people love. There's nobody prominent on the Democrats side that fits the bill, maybe with the exception of Bernie, who is way too old and technically isn't a Democrat... and AOC, who is probably too female, but who knows... she definitely has the love factor.

 

[Estebonrober]

i saw news on this too. particular article is paywalled, but i saw stuff on this elsewhere.

so anyways. been thinking a bit about it. so some shower thoughts on what happened here.

whether this would truly upset the progressives, i don't think so. i think progressives cared more about abortion/"hardline" immigration policy/cheneys/gaza than harris being featured on any particular outlet. nobody blinks at her appearing on fox news. for her base, the fact that she's willing to go into the lion's den is probably a good thing. (rogan is not fox no, but a lion's den he is, irt who his listeners are)

i think it's still dems stuck in the 90s. lots of the campaign staff and strategy is still too clintonian, just has a progressive tint with piecemeal policy that progressives like.

i wonder who the staffers are, and what their data has shown them here (and what it says irt bias). so i'm trying to wrap my head around this discrepancy; fox is fine, rogan is not. then it's a question of legitimacy of the outlet in question. fox is fine to appear on, since while they're arguably more insane than rogan, they're "real" news, they're powerful, should be respected, and should be appeared on if it can be arranged. rogan is not legitimate, he's not on "real" TV, and then i guess the staffers' idea is that you help legitimizing an illegitimate media outlet that's been helping the right recently? and that would make people mad?

this is all a bunch of leaps of analysis, if my musings is what's going on. but i do think it's a huge issue. dems are just concretely worse at being flexible and using newer forms of mass media. walz is good at it (walz was a massive boon for the campaign, i will die on that hill, and he had a clear line between concrete results, memeability and being the midwesternest of dads; that he wasn't aggressive enough at the debate was the only real flaw i could identify; anyways point is that he used social media in a kindhearted dad-like way, which i thought was excellent); bernie is good at it, aoc is good at it. incidentally, bernie did show up on rogan, but what i remember most about it was people panicking about optics in the same way they do about harris here. the real issue is that bluntly irt swing voters and garnering engagement, fox is just not relevant anymore. rogan is. the media share he has is massive, and his base is specifically the kind of people the dems have a hard time getting airtime with anyways.

basically, my assumptions are -
- rogan is seen by them as illegitimate by the staff in some way
- they understand that progressives (often) understand that legitimizing a bad illegitimate outlet is poor optics
- therefore appearing on rogan would alienate the vote (even if outrage is not the same as keeping people from the polls)
(and again these are guesswork and i'm free to being corrected)
and if that's actually the case -
- rogan, whether i and others like it or not, is de facto a real outlet now. you can't on a practical level pretend it isn't.
- the idea was to sidestep the issue on this particular outlet and do fox instead because i guess they thought everyone understands fox is Big and Necessary to speak on? i'm not sure that's as true anymore, is the issue.

so: the clintonian path doesn't work anymore. and this extends to some of the strategy. the idea that appearing on fox is enough is not true anymore. podcasts are actually great. noone - or noone relevant to the turnout - watches tv news anymore. stop appearing on fox (or, like, do, for optics). appear on rogan. appear on stuff like this - maybe not as a presidential candidate i guess, but people should understand my general point here. i don't want to go full millenial on this and claim it's because they don't know how to internet per se, because they did try and go quite active there; but there's doing your own youtube channel stuff, and then there's appearing on joe rogan.

of course they may also just be correct that appearing on joe rogan would lose progressive votes. i just don't really see it though. if they didn't have those because of optics, the optics were lost after cheney stuff.

I don't think it matters whether or not it upset progressives, the troglodyte behavior was believing it would upset them and thinking that it mattered that people would spout off tweets about how stupid it is to go on Rogan. The Bernie position on this has always been solid, they learned that it jsut was too late and they are still ignoring all of the more important parts about messaging and policy. Instead of showing strength and talking about how you actually fix problems as opposed to allow our enemies to fight each other while they keep pillaging the nation at large, that talking point would hit home on a show like Rogan's.

fwiw I stand by my personal take that it does upset progressives as this article appears to be using the term... More importantly than progressives (academics and educated professional class generally) was that it would piss off Blue MAGA. Omg have I been yelled at by Blue MAGA types, whether it was about replacing Biden and maybe having real primaries for these things instead of the complete bullfeathers farce the DNC runs, whether we should be putting targets on companies buying up homes to rent out (too extreme apparently), or whether we should be even talking about the manosphere. It's a problem.

 

[Voidwalkin]

i saw news on this too. particular article is paywalled, but i saw stuff on this elsewhere.

Huh. It is. How strange. It wasn't for me mere hours ago. I'm not a financial times subscriber.

the distinction is how and why we got here. The distinction is super important, progressives (this usage of the term anyways) are liberals who just have not been cut yet.

I mean I basically said the intellectual architecture of the modern left leads to thought processes that produce outcomes indistinguishable from liberalism. I haven't made any distinction between progressives/liberals for some years now, so I don't really disagree on that

don't think it matters whether or not it upset progressives, the troglodyte behavior was believing it would upset them and thinking that it mattered that people would spout off tweets about how stupid it is to go on Rogan

I'm unsure if campaign made this wager, though.

More likely they thought it'd be easier to capture moderate, wealthier, educated Republicans via Cheney than lower class Republican leaning men via Rogan and his ilk.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Of course, ignoring the fact there are more of the latter.

 

[Sommerswerd]

appear on stuff like this - maybe not as a presidential candidate i guess, but people should understand my general point here. i don't want to go full millenial on this and claim it's because they don't know how to internet per se, because they did try and go quite active there; but there's doing your own youtube channel stuff, and then there's appearing on joe rogan.

Harris would NEVER appear on something like this.

I listened to the whole thing and I'm glad I did. At first it seemed so ridiculously absurd, but the more I watched it, the more genius it seemed. AOC really has her finger on the pulse of where the future of voter engagement is headed.

The way she dealt with the question/request about trans-rights was handled so well... and it was a little suprising because its so contrary to what you usually get from politicians... just clear, genuine, unapologetic, no squirming, no evasiveness, no equivocation, fence-riding or double-talking. That is the kind of thing people like... that's what people like about Trump... just take a stand on things and stop all the wishy-washy'ness.

The end of the video was actually pretty moving, just hearing how well she relates to her audience and how much love, appreciation and adoration people have for her.

Just watching that video makes me think AOC could win a national primary. She is the future.

 

[choxorn]

- rogan, whether i and others like it or not, is de facto a real outlet now. you can't on a practical level pretend it isn't.

Well, yeah.

Speaking personally I'd certainly roll my eyes at he appearing on Rogan, but recognize that it's probably a good idea for her to do that, and it would be less "ugh, why is she legitimizing this dumbass" and more "what the hell is the state of the country that this dumbass is one of the most popular podcasters"

Certainly I'd prefer to see her trying to win over Rogan than trying to win over Dick Cheney.

 

[Estebonrober]

Harris would NEVER appear on something like this.

I listened to the whole thing and I'm glad I did. At first it seemed so ridiculously absurd, but the more I watched it, the more genius it seemed. AOC really has her finger on the pulse of where the future of voter engagement is headed.

The way she dealt with the question/request about trans-rights was handled so well... and it was a little suprising because its so contrary to what you usually get from politicians... just clear, genuine, unapologetic, no squirming, no evasiveness, no equivocation, fence-riding or double-talking. That is the kind of thing people like... that's what people like about Trump... just take a stand on things and stop all the wishy-washy'ness.

The end of the video was actually pretty moving, just hearing how well she relates to her audience and how much love, appreciation and adoration people have for her.

Just watching that video makes me think AOC could win a national primary. She is the future.

Well since I do not do much mssm, this is the only AoC I ever see, well this and people on every side of things tearing her apart in reacts and video essays... which is the nature of the job, so, I guess in that since she is prepared for the job. Sadly, I doubt it comes.

Well, yeah.

Speaking personally I'd certainly roll my eyes at he appearing on Rogan, but recognize that it's probably a good idea for her to do that, and it would be less "ugh, why is she legitimizing this dumbass" and more "what the hell is the state of the country that this dumbass is one of the most popular podcasters"

Certainly I'd prefer to see her trying to win over Rogan than trying to win over Dick Cheney.

Rogan's parents were welfare queens so you can just go in there and tear apart this guy's bullfeathers and shift the entire interview to attack mode on why social programs are good for people and how corporate America is stealing you and your children's lunch money. Give names of CEOs.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Just watching that video makes me think AOC could win a national primary. She is the future.

It is 5 years old. Would she do that today?

 

[Voidwalkin]

It is 5 years old. Would she do that today?

I think so.

She directly asked people who voted for both her and for Trump to explain why they did it, on Twitter, very recently.

 

[Estebonrober]

From the halls of the elite msm... the lovely progressive lib couple do a nice breakdown on the economy and why people hate it versus the reality of it... I'll give a personal example that upends most of the talkign points in this video...

I work in healthcare. I got in the industry in 09' finally got a fulltime position in 11'. Because of the prior housing nightmare I was lowballed on entry level wages. When I was forced out by my employer (for the audacity of talking about wages and disciplinary actions with other co-workers) I got a 30% increas in pay, making a huge chunk of the initial low balling back (you know the annual COLA most corporations use is not a real raise nor is it really meant to be and if you start on the low end it takes waaaay more time to make that up at 2%, think of it like the reverse of a mortgage and the smaller a down payment starts the worse the monthly hit). For the last few years though I've been getting my 2-3% annual COLA but inflation has more than double that in two of those years, meaning I've effectively taken a ten percent pay cut over the last two years in real spending power. Yes, I've noticed it, no it does not feel good, and I'm in the enviable position of being financially astute and being ahead on a lot of things (I won my home and do not have car payment atm), I know that the exact same thing is playing out on most working Americans and the majority of them are not ahead of things... so

 

[Kyriakos]

Harris would NEVER appear on something like this.

I listened to the whole thing and I'm glad I did. At first it seemed so ridiculously absurd, but the more I watched it, the more genius it seemed. AOC really has her finger on the pulse of where the future of voter engagement is headed.

The way she dealt with the question/request about trans-rights was handled so well... and it was a little suprising because its so contrary to what you usually get from politicians... just clear, genuine, unapologetic, no squirming, no evasiveness, no equivocation, fence-riding or double-talking. That is the kind of thing people like... that's what people like about Trump... just take a stand on things and stop all the wishy-washy'ness.

The end of the video was actually pretty moving, just hearing how well she relates to her audience and how much love, appreciation and adoration people have for her.

Just watching that video makes me think AOC could win a national primary. She is the future.

She would appear now again, if given the chance. That youtuber is quite massive (he wasn't back then) - although for a while now he tends to post 1 video/year (which gets over 10 million views).

 

[Zardnaar]

Beats me. Doesn't ring a bell. If you can find an article about it, I'd love to read it.

I think its simpler than that. Candidates people like have the best chance to win. If Harris had to run in a primary she would have lost to someone the voters liked more. That person would have had a better chance in the election. Ultimately, it boils down the candidate and how much people like them, not any specific policies, or specific messaging, or specific issues. AOC's post election survey of voters that voted for both her and Trump shed some light on that. Obama won because people liked him, Baby Bush won because people thought he was more likeable than the opponents he was against. Trump won because people hated his first opponent and knew/liked him better than his second opponent. Biden won because people liked him better and were sick of Trump.

For the Democrats to win the next presidential election, they need to find a candidate that people love. There's nobody prominent on the Democrats side that fits the bill, maybe with the exception of Bernie, who is way too old and technically isn't a Democrat... and AOC, who is probably too female, but who knows... she definitely has the love factor.

AOC I think is the future maybe 10 or 12 years. I would vote for her now but USA.

Realistically they probably need a charismatic white male with a populist economics first agenda.

If Trump screws up as much as expected GoP will probably be out. Doing nothing means you're at risk of 1 term yourself.

I've voted for wonen 6/10 elections 0 tone die to them being female. That's here not USA though. If the electorate is sexist like the progressives claim it's idiotic running a female.

 

[Voidwalkin]

If the electorate is sexist like the progressives claim it's idiotic running a female.

It's not.

I think she could win. She is a talented communicator who establishes trust easily and quickly. Further, she has a good process: she routinely asks people how they feel about X and why. This reception of actual opinion allows for better formation of popular policy than ideological rigidity. Her present positions may not transfer seamlessly, but she has the process to craft new ones that would, if she were to spend 8 months hearing from the Iowa crowd in a primary campaign.

I often get the sense in politics that some people are very talented rote learners, but lack observational insight, sometimes completely. More von Neumann than Einstein. That's a flaw in an era of quick cultural flux, and they're left out in the cold when the wind shifts and the ideology doesn't interact as expected or intended. She's not that. She can adjust, via observational learning.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Talk radio will not allow a democratic woman be president. I suspect our first will be a GOP woman. Maybe even an ex-FoxNews personality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It is 5 years old. Would she do that today?

I don't know. You think she considers herself above that kind of thing now, or thinks that it's not "serious" enough to promote the branding that she is going for nowadays? I like to think that she still would... but that is just speculation. I'd love to see a video of her doing something similar more recently, if anyone has one.

AOC I think is the future maybe 10 or 12 years.

If she waits that long, she will be making the same mistake as Hillary. Hillary might have won in 2004. By 2008 and 2016 it was too late.

If the electorate is sexist like the progressives claim it's idiotic running a female.

I'm pretty cynical, but even I think this take might be too cynical. If everyone keeps thinking this way, there will never be a woman elected POTUS...

Talk radio will not allow a democratic woman be president. I suspect our first will be a GOP woman. Maybe even an ex-FoxNews personality.

No way. The Republicans would never nominate a woman in a Primary... although... MTG seems to be angling to move up. I guess we'll see, won't we?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The politics of the past 6 years have changed most of us in some way. I suspect AOC has not been immune.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If they don't manage to damagingly tie him to epstein and kiddie diddling with this, buckle the F up, the next 4 are going to be wild.

"I don't care if he didn't commit any crimes flying three seventeen year olds to an island to **** them, I'm not asking for him to be arrested. I'm judging him as a man."

Anyone left that leans into that that responsibility convincingly? Fetterman got that sort of credibility or has he been torn down? It's not my circle. It'd be better if it was an R, but wouldn't count on them. They've been burning through voices of dissent for half a decade.

Gaetz resigned from his current term, which ends in January. He was re-elected to another term, which starts in January. I think he is still a viable member of Congress.