Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

A lot of those "lost souls" will change their minds because their minds are malleable and if the political winds shift they will.

To the extent Dems should be trying to appeal directly to young men, they probably shouldn't even be using candidates to do so, but organizing with, e.g. progressive professional athletes and other celebrities who can effectively talk shit about Republicans and tell these young men to stop being so soft. A little bit of Jordan Peterson "clean your room" shit coming from a progressive guy like Alan Ritchson will be a lot more successful than average politicians going on long-form podcasts. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

meet them where they are

This language is too imprecise for me to know whether I agree.

I can agree if "where they are" refers to online media, podcast formats, or shared interests such as martial arts, comedy, and self-improvement.

But if "where they are" means treating women like shit, validating eugenicist "race realist" theories, or equating wealth with intelligence, then we should not "meet" anyone there.

There's a crucial difference between abstaining from the culture wars (losing strategy) and surrendering in the culture wars (just as bad as losing). Participate. Fight. Win.

Posted
57 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Establishment Dems care about 3 things: Representing the interests of their corporate hackers, representing the interests of Israel, and getting re-electiled. Until they start being held accountable for the first 2, the 3rd will just keep happening and nothing will change.

You are correct. But I would frame it as the #1 thing they care about is being re-elected and having a position of power. And in order to do that, they have to stay on the good side of corporations and AIPAC. I don't think most come into office with the goal of backing corporations and Israel. 

A lot of leftists have been pissed at AOC and have accused her of being a sellout. I don't agree, as you have to play the game in Congress. I think she's done a good job of balancing her ideals with surviving/rising through the ranks. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
This language is too imprecise for me to know whether I agree.
I can agree if "where they are" refers to online media, podcast formats, or shared interests such as martial arts, comedy, and self-improvement.
But if "where they are" means treating women like shit, validating eugenicist "race realist" theories, or equating wealth with intelligence, then we should not "meet" anyone there.
There's a crucial difference between abstaining from the culture wars (losing strategy) and surrendering in the culture wars (just as bad as losing). Participate. Fight. Win.

It means don’t be scared to go into “unfriendly” spaces to pitch your ideas to that audience.

And not implicating that this is what you are saying, but assuming that your third paragraph describes every male Republican voter is the opposite of fighting. It’s giving up. It’s the easy conclusion. It’s exactly how you lose an entire generation of potential voters.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This language is too imprecise for me to know whether I agree.

I can agree if "where they are" refers to online media, podcast formats, or shared interests such as martial arts, comedy, and self-improvement.

But if "where they are" means treating women like shit, validating eugenicist "race realist" theories, or equating wealth with intelligence, then we should not "meet" anyone there.

There's a crucial difference between abstaining from the culture wars (losing strategy) and surrendering in the culture wars (just as bad as losing). Participate. Fight. Win.

The problem with this is you would, once again, just be conceding this generation. Even if they are supporting any of these items you listed, it doesn't mean they aren't able to be swayed off of them. I used to think wealthy people were extremely intelligent, and then I grew up.  So to me, yes, it's bigger than media platforms, podcasts, etc. If you want to win races, you have to acknowledge where the populace is and address it accordingly. Right now we have a signficant portion of the Democratic party that don't even want to try. That's a massive problem. 

Posted

Those were only illustrative examples, and as much as I wish I could take credit for it the sad truth is there are morons who are still advising democrats to adopt a "conservative lite" strategy, which is how Gavin Newsom starts a podcast in which he agrees with everything Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon say. So unfortunately there are overpaid Tom Herman-caliber frauds who hear "meet young men where they are" and conclude that Dems should pander to that offensive caricature overgeneralization of Joe Rogan's audience.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Those were only illustrative examples, and as much as I wish I could take credit for it the sad truth is there are morons who are still advising democrats to adopt a "conservative lite" strategy, which is how Gavin Newsom starts a podcast in which he agrees with everything Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon say. So unfortunately there are overpaid Tom Herman-caliber frauds who hear "meet young men where they are" and conclude that Dems should pander to that offensive caricature overgeneralization of Joe Rogan's audience.

This is exactly what I am talking about. I am not saying "don't go into their spaces" when I say Fuck Them Kids. What I AM saying is don't craft strategy you think would appeal to them. This is what Clinton did and it turned off loyal lefties, got the party blamed for the housing collapse in 08, and lost his wife the 16 election. Stand on business and force people to align with you. That's what the Republicans did.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

To the extent Dems should be trying to appeal directly to young men, they probably shouldn't even be using candidates to do so, but organizing with, e.g. progressive professional athletes and other celebrities who can effectively talk shit about Republicans and tell these young men to stop being so soft. A little bit of Jordan Peterson "clean your room" shit coming from a progressive guy like Alan Ritchson will be a lot more successful than average politicians going on long-form podcasts. 

Bring in more celebrities? That's your answer? That's part of why the republicans are calling you the class of elitist...

Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Bring in more celebrities? That's your answer? That's part of why the republicans are calling you the class of elitist...

By definition people won't hear a message from non-celebrities. What the fuck is Joe Rogan if he's not a celebrity?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

By definition people won't hear a message from non-celebrities. What the fuck is Joe Rogan if he's not a celebrity?

Joe Rogan isn't the spokesperson for for the GOP, the GOP uses him as a tool. That's why you and democrats are dumb mother fuckers in this. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm sorry but what the fuck has Corey Booker done to justify him being a core Democratic leader? I could get on board with the rest.

Sorry if I am misreading you.

 

2 hours ago, immamac said:

He gave a good speech one time and he stood up for 25 hours to fillibuster (checks notes) absolutely nothing. 

well, it's not like we have a deep bench. he's on the list because when he speaks he's effective but yeah, he hasn't done nearly enough for what he could be doing. no argument at all.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

A lot of those "lost souls" will change their minds because their minds are malleable and if the political winds shift they will.

To the extent Dems should be trying to appeal directly to young men, they probably shouldn't even be using candidates to do so, but organizing with, e.g. progressive professional athletes and other celebrities who can effectively talk shit about Republicans and tell these young men to stop being so soft. A little bit of Jordan Peterson "clean your room" shit coming from a progressive guy like Alan Ritchson will be a lot more successful than average politicians going on long-form podcasts. 

 

5 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Joe Rogan isn't the spokesperson for for the GOP, the GOP uses him as a tool. That's why you and democrats are dumb mother fuckers in this

Did you eat paint chips as a kid or something?

Edited by wildcat09
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You still don't get it....like holy shit dude

I get what you are saying but I think the disconnect is that what he is saying is that the GOP is using already well known people to broadcast their message. People like Rogan and Andrew Schulz are pulling in huge numbers. We have a ton of left podcasters but none of them of the notoriety of them since they were celebrities before the podcasts. Despite the optics Dems have to do the same because without a recognizable name you just don't drive the numbers you need to.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I get what you are saying but I think the disconnect is that what he is saying is that the GOP is using already well known people to broadcast their message. People like Rogan and Andrew Schulz are pulling in huge numbers. We have a ton of left podcasters but none of them of the notoriety of them since they were celebrities before the podcasts. Despite the optics Dems have to do the same because without a recognizable name you just don't drive the numbers you need to.

Democrats can use those well known guys too but they are using those guys you mentioned as a tool to get their message out with their people sending the message. They're not putting Rogan/Schulz as the messenger which was his initial thought. Those podcast reach 10s of millions of people if not more...use the already established podcast because the dem side of those podcast is more directed towards women but realistically use all forms. Don't completely refuse to go on Rogan because you think he's republican or it's some maga podcast. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
10 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

You still don't get it....like holy shit dude

you said GOP uses Rogan as a tool that's why they are so good at it, he was advocating the exact same strategy. when he said celebrity he didn't mean have some hollywood lib hob-knob with Biden then say shit on the campaign trail. Jon Stewart is a Dem tool and funny as hell (also a helluva advocate for 9-11 responders and will call out Dems when they suck too). Dems need 50 more people like that, 45 of them on youtube, podcasts, twitch, whatever and are outside the mainstream media. not sure how saying do the same thing makes it different.

Posted
11 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Don't completely refuse to go on Rogan because you think he's republican or it's some maga podcast. 

Democrats weren't going on Rogan because he was giving a stage to Holocaust deniers and anti-vaxxers.  There is, or was, a general mindset that you don't provide draw eyes to someone who is peddling irresponsible and dangerous bullshit.  But, I think that mentality is changing.  Frankly, there is nothing a politician is going to do to give Rogan "credibility" because credibility is an outdated notion in today's world. 

Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

I'm glad we're still at the "Dems have to podcast their way out of this" stage after all the shit the Trump admin has done so far.

I think podcasts are just the medium in which they need to get the message out, not necessarily because they are podcasts, but because in large amounts people that aren't just mainlining fox news are getting the majority of their worldview from the podcast realm. it's not exactly a small portion of eyes and ears -- it directly competes with the reach and size of traditional broadcast networks, especially with millennials, zoomers and alphas.

Posted
5 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think podcasts are just the medium in which they need to get the message out, not necessarily because they are podcasts, but because in large amounts people that aren't just mainlining fox news are getting the majority of their worldview from the podcast realm. it's not exactly a small portion of eyes and ears -- it directly competes with the reach and size of traditional broadcast networks, especially with millennials, zoomers and alphas.

Exactly. My BIL was always leaning Trump anyway, but hearing him and his buddies talk about how Trump went on podcasts for 3 hours, they had a lot of respect for him putting himself out there in the places they consume media, even if they thought some of the stuff he said was idiotic. They knew nothing of Kamala but what they were told on these platforms. 

Obviously, some shows simply aren't going to have Dems on, but you cannot gift the GOP 3 hours to spew BS without trying to counteract it--not when the reach of these shows are what they are. 

Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

A lot of those "lost souls" will change their minds because their minds are malleable and if the political winds shift they will.

Vibes, man!

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm glad we're still at the "Dems have to podcast their way out of this" stage after all the shit the Trump admin has done so far.

Well, my main focus is still to whine incessantly about it on a social media platform with people who mostly agree with me.  Podcasts are my back-up plan. 

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm glad we're still at the "Dems have to podcast their way out of this" stage after all the shit the Trump admin has done so far.

You're not wrong, actually. Podcasts and aesthetics alone will not fix the problems the Dems have. It's not just "messaging." The sales pitch is bad, but the product also is bad. Bernie on the Schulz podcast is focused mostly on the party's bullshit priorities and failure to offer anything to the working class. Kamala's "opportunity economy" maybe was the closest they came to scrounging something together for them (side note: who's the ad-wizard who came up with that pile of dogshit idea?).

As with most neoliberal ideas, it was a wonky, means-tested, boring and hard-to-follow solution. So I agree with Bernie that the Dems absolutely must change their priorities. That will go a long way toward fixing the product.

The discussion we've been having about Joe Rogan and Asmongold isn't about the party's product, though. It's about how the party's ideas are marketed. We totally abandoned the culture war because we prematurely claimed victory the moment a black man got elected president, and we're paying the price for that. So the marketing strategy should not take strong demographics for granted, and it should not turn its nose up at long-form, unscripted conversational formats that have a lot of influence over Gen Z men.

I really hated how scripted everything Kamala said and did on the campaign trail felt. They really thought a 45 minute softball interview with "Call Me Daddy" (or whatever the fuck it's called) has the same effect as going on Theo Von? Not even close. We desperately needed a candidate who knew how to have a normal conversation with normal people. Tim Walz had that skill in spades. You don't build a reputation as a great teacher without knowing how to read and control a room of unpredictable people.

Even Beto O'Rourke has a tendency to steer normal conversations into a stump speech, which Boomers and Gen X and even Millennials totally adore, but it just doesn't land with Gen Z. I see a lot of the same quirks with Pete Buttigieg. I respect them for being willing to speak up in hostile territory, but after a while the attendees feel like they're being talked at instead of hung out with. JD Vance is worse when it comes to taking fair questions and unnaturally launching into talking points, so don't get me wrong it's not a uniquely Democratic tendency. We just need people who remember how to act normal and connect with normal people.

Edited by chainsaw


×
×
  • Create New...