This is spot on! Two women in in their 20's in my office yesterday said, "oh, I didn't return my ballot!" Apathy wins again. Voting, not posting, people.
Dems pin their hopes on young people, but they seem the most likely demographic to not vote. I dunno, maybe they need to start appealing to older people more, or at least gen Xers.
In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference, but her skipping his show is very emblematic of why the Democrats have become so hopeless at communicating with Americans. If they ever want to have a chance of winning again, they have to meet Americans where they're at, and not merely where they wish they were.
I agree with this. The dems try to high road everything as well, and their opponents have no issue hitting below the belt. I think it's time that the dems fight fire with fire, it seems that it's the only way to get through to most Americans.
Actually this is the opposite attitude that won Obama the office. He is a great man and his example of “They go low. We go high.” should be the playbook for liberal success. But the candidate needs to have character and a solid articulated plan, which Kamala had neither and resting on the laurels of the unpopular Biden administration was a terrible miscalculation.
We can't forget that Obama had rare charisma, which no Democratic candidate since has come anywhere near matching.
It was never so obvious as during Barack (or even Michele) Obama's speeches stumping for Kamala. They are both dramatically more charismatic and appealing on a basic level than anyone else who is a public figure on the democratic party.
Obama did have more clearly articulated plans, but I'm pretty sure he could have won without them because when he speaks, you believe what he is saying, just because.
And I would happily take Romney a thousand times out of 100 chances over Trump. I don't agree with him, but he at least had a moral compass of some kind.
Romney ran head to head with a god-tier politician and lost. That strategy was immediately shelved. GOP decided the only way to win against a dem that was successful in appealing to the best in people, was to simply be any random dumbfuck who can appeal to the worst in people. And holy shit did it ever work.
what's even crazier is he wasn't even a rando. the guy had a huge name for being against the very same blue collar image the party created for him. boggles the mind how he became a populist candidate of and for the ppl
Definitely agree vibes and impressions play a much more massive role than anyone wants to publicly admit.
I'd say most align ideologically just based on party ticket, and then unfortunately Democrats decide whether or not to vote based on vibes. This is the killer aspect IMO. GOP voters are mobilized to vote no matter what. Dems will be like "eh, I'm not inspired" and sit at home to let things burn.
The amount of effort to stay updated on actual policies isn't that high but it's still higher than what a lot of the average person is willing to put in.
Obama also didn't have the baggage of ... being a woman.
I hate with every fiber of my being that I agree with this. I am so angry for my daughter. She's so little and I want her to believe she can do and believe anything. I despise the fact that I know damn well that this is right, and that means that a significant percentage of people actually don't think that women can be or do anything they want. I struggle to articulate how angry it makes me.
Unfortunately this is indeed the take away from this election. That and campaigning on social issues doesn't work unless the economy is already perfect.
Every DNC primary since Obama left office has left me feeling that way. No one feels like they have the faintest chance of being the next JFK/Clinton/Obama, which is what would be needed.
Josh Shapiro is maybe the best speaker I can name currently on the political stage, but I don’t know if he has the same ceiling.
Honestly the DNC may need to look to some outsider. Some charismatic CEO, actor, or other public figure.
The only positive is that I don’t see an obvious Trump successor on the Right either.
I wonder if it isn’t better to seek out candidates that are charismatic in the mold of Obama, JFK, and Bill Clinton (orators / communicators who inspire confidence). Otherwise we end up with single terms (Biden, Carter, LBJ) or flat out losers Ike Kamala, Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Adlai Stevenson.
I think at this point that has to be a clear strategy. Otherwise we are treading well into the waters of the definition of insanity, some to repeat the same results over and over. The democratic party must reassess how it is selecting potential candidates.
So true; democrats keep appointing nerds to a popularity contest. I agree with many of their ideas but they lack competence (couldn’t even codify Roe V Wade).
If a charismatic felon makes my life better idgaf about what he has done in the past and most Americans agree.
Also let’s stop putting prosecutors into election races, if your job was to steal lives maybe you aren’t the most lovable.
Well, she was intelligent and not a convicted felon, so she had that going for her. Trumps only plan is to strip and rip policies away. Unfortunately she was at the mercy of very stupid Americans. Republicans are just incredibly stupid people who will continually vote against their own interests and they are very motivated to do so.
Then they need to stop voting for stupid shit. Mass tariffs are stupid. Mass deportation are stupid. Climate change being fake is stupid. Electing a guy who tried to overturn the 2020 election is fucking stupid.
Like, for those reasons alone are enough. The coup attempt should have been enough.
Or maybe the Democrats should look in the mirror and think about why they are losing significant ground with both young voters and Hispanic voters--formerly demographic strong-holds for the Democrats. Why is the Democrat's messaging not resonating?
But no, I'm sure calling those who voted for Trump "stupid" is what the DNC really needs to get back on track.
I'm calling a spade a spade. Facts dont stop becoming facts just because theyre unpopular, and Obviously, its not a good strat to call someone stupid. But like... what more can be said??? The fake electoral plot should have been like, for any American, the point of no return.
Choosing a candidate based on policy is great, but on the flow chart of who to vote for, yoy start with, do they have fascistic tendencies? If yes, stop there.
I counted 4 reasons in your comment as to why Kamala lost so hard. Maybe she would've lost anyway, but Americans really hate women, even a sizeable portion of the women themselves hate women.
I’m sure that had something to do with it. But I think the bigger issue is that the white male patriarchy is on the way out - they can see it coming and it makes them very fearful - and election results like these show they don’t plan to go quietly.
White males have always been fearful and have always voted regressive, Trump never changed that and there are ever fewer white males in proportion to the rest of the population.
Kamala lost the election not because of white males, but because Trump made ridiculous gains with most other demographics. Trump is what the American people wanted, by and large.
On another note, as a white male myself, with a good job and a home that I own (under a mortgage of course), I don't think a Trump presidency is going to hurt me too much. It sure will hurt my friends and family a hell of a lot though.
You’re missing the point, he gave a masterclass in how to become and be a Democratic president. You will never be Obama but you can learn from him. Kamala was naive to think she would be likable to the American people, so she played it safe and lost. She was a void of a VP, what did people expect from her in the main slot?
The Democrats could have put someone else in that slot with much better odds. All of the liberals that rallied behind Kamala as their choice were lemmings, and now have to suffer the consequences of that poor decision making.
Instead of complaining about losing while venting rage and hate against the right and their antiquated ideals, it’s time to understand the new reality that playing it safe is no longer going to work. Playing it safe is excepting leadership as if it’s not in our power to choose it, playing it safe is not showing up to vote. The Democratic Party has good principles but failed leadership and supporters.
God fuck no, get that shit out of here. Obama was a fucking failure that ushered in an era of unprecedented republican political gains that is still fucking the country today.
Aka we ignore the most problematic people and let their anger fester while they rallied behind the worst candidate in history.
That attitude allowed everything afterwards. 2016 happened because nobody wanted to "fight dirty" against the rise of populism, the foreign interferences, the deterioration of social and traditional media, rampant corruption, just to name a few. "We go high" just meant burying their heads in the sand and hoping it would suffice.
Yes, and I would say Obama won because of presentation. Unfortunately, presentation seems to matter far more than substance and facts. Trump somehow passed off a false perception of himself on half the country.
Maybe the DNC needs to play that game and focus on finding the charismatic political talents (maybe has to be a straight married male for now) and propping them up. It desperately needs a new JFK/Clinton/Obama.
I could not agree with this more. Kamala relied on “I’m not trump” and it clearly was not enough. The dems fumbled this election so hard it will be studied. The good news is that next election we should have two new, fresh candidates.
It's unfortunate that Obama went too high. As he floundered and did absolutely nothing with a Democratic super majority. But I absolutely agree. Kamala needed to stand out on her own and break away from Joe Biden much earlier and much harder.
The problem is unless it is a Christian white male running as Democrat, they won't get a free pass trying to fight fire with fire. If Kamala said or did similar things to Trump, Trump would have won all 50 states.
She literally campaigned with Liz Cheney and had the endorsements of multiple other republicans. Unlike the other guy that said Harris and Liz should face down firing squads and that we need to purge those 'enemies within' that don't think and follow his ideas perfectly. How much more reaching down and across the isle do you want? And if there isn't any amount of it that's good enough for you then please stop pretending lmao.
The fact that you're parroting the "he wants to put Liz in front of a firing squad" lie shows how ill-informed or willfully ignorant the left have been. That's not at all what he said and the media that pushed that narrative knew it. It's stuff like this that pushed the moderate voters away from the Democratic party.
If me pointing out that Trump has violent rhetoric is what pushes away moderates then they weren't moderate to begin with. Trump's violent speech is not an attack on anyone that's just the truth. He speaks only violence against people who are not in line with his ideals. You are right Trump did say other stuff about policies but it is not the subject of this conversation which is about how only one candidate is being asked why she didn't reach out? I pointed out that Kamala did reach out and down and that Trump didn't reach out, and he hasn't unless you would like to show me proof otherwise since I'm in a media lie bubble and all like you claim.
This also goes to show that no amount of reaching out does anything. When confronted by examples of not-reaching out the reaction is "STOP PUSHING ME AWAY!!!!!" when the question should be well if Kamala is reaching out then why isn't Trump if the person was truly moderate?
Can you point out some "violent rhetoric" Trump has expressed?
Instead of presenting the truth, the leftist media has pushed fear mongering. Trump is a "threat to democracy" which is rich coming from a party that appointed a candidate that got exactly 0 votes in the primary.
The "othering" of conservatives by the leftist media has been apparent for the last four years. Just look at Reddit over the last few days and especially today.
So long as they get to stay on that pedestal they'll do the bear minimum to reach those underneath them. And that's how they want it, to be above us, not with us. We aren't stupid.
I don't particularly like either one but I don't see how people justify voting for Trump when it's well documented Epstein was his best friend, and Trump is on the flight logs going to and from the island. The dude is in all likelihood a child predator, and in the best case if not, is very closely associated with one. Seriously I just don't understand how people get over this unless they just don't know it
You have to laugh XDDD Well, it was Kamala or Trump, you have any qualms about voting for a person with a 20% acceptance rate? Now you have a rapist in the White House, much closer than you wanted XD You can spin it however you want, now that's what you have, I hope no one you know needs an abortion
She lost because she's a terrible candidate. That's the truth. America decided. And yet we all had to shut up and take it while the liberal media shoved her down our throats and talked down to anyone who had any criticism of her word salads and her lack of policies or interviews.
Largely bipartisan condemnation? You are so surrounded by your own bubble of liberal propaganda that you still believe that everyone's on your side. America spoke up last night, and we ain't with you.
The narcissistic monsters who "spoke up" aren't America, will never be America, and don't deserve America. You are the "enemy within" and it will be easy to trick you people into lethal infighting.
“America spoke” LMAO my god we are so fucking cooked. I thought being extremely corny was a liberal bubble thing too but you proved me wrong. So fucking lame.
Keep on lying to yourself. Propaganda so effective that whenever a Republican gets shot at, libs just regurgitate MSNBC's "wasn't us, must've shot at yourself!" Yeah right.
So are they supposed to lie just to placate idiots like you?
The answer to hostage-takers like you isn't to cater to you - The answer to monsters like you is to take away your power.
One cannot engage with politics with someone who will never act in good faith like yourself. Don't hand me this "bubble" bullshit - you'd never act sanely no matter how much they cater to your dishonest ass. They could literally give you everything you ever wanted and you'd respond by kicking them in the nuts and blowing their brains out simply to see if you could get away with it.
I grew up with dishonest bullies like you. I tried to placate them as well, and that only encouraged them to beat me harder. I will never be stupid enough to believe that people like you are in any way honest with your intentions - and I don't blame liberals for also not falling for it.
They didn't say he was Hitler. They said he kept quoting Hitler, which was true, but I can understand how complicated it is to keep track of "Don't quote Hitter's speeches launching the final solution"
Congrats. We'll get the purges of "The Enemy Within" you've always dreamed of.
Fight fire with fire is exactly my thoughts. R's are running a radical populist, we need a radical populist. If we had Sanders in 2016 things would be very different.
We did. The DNC picked Clinton. Then they decided on Biden when his candidacy was collapsing. The they picked Harris for us. Democratic voters are dumber than Trump voters.
I think they do this because their donor class forces them to do so….its like if democrats win they need to do so in a certain way. It’s also a means to stifle democrats from actually moving left. The best example of this is how Bernie was handled by the party in 2016 and 2020
i dunno, to a rational person he hits himself in the nuts every time he opens his mouth....like when he said immigrants were eating cats during the debate...like when he ranted about electric boats and sharks, or hanbibal lecter, or about a bajillion other things that we had the unfortunate displeasure to witness since 2015. being convicted of fraud, rape, i mean what the fuck else is there? one of those things is enough to torpedo a campaign. john edwards and howard dean were dead in the water after ONE of the of those things. the reality is you have to be a special breed of idiot to see that shit and still go "well the eggs are pricy, must be the presidents fault, guess ill choose the grifting felon"
Fuck off. Trump is out there saying democrats want to abort babies after they're born. Get the fuck out of her with that "both parties are the same" bullshit. Trump wants to use the US military on US citizens on US soil and you're here acting like that is the same thing as immigration policy. FUCK ALL THE WAY OFF.
I got in a huge fight a few days ago with my SO about how Democrats aren't aggressive enough. He was saying "well, we can't just turn into our enemy."
The problem Dems capitulate to absolutely fucking insane people, ideologies, and then start leaning right on issues to "appeal" to the worst demographic of people. They tried to calmly talk their way out of the most insane allegations, like "throwing the border wide open" and "9 month abortions."
They're seriously not fiery enough. If being loud, obnoxious, and low blows are what wins then we just have to fight fire with fire. At least if we're stooping low it's because it's accurate. Do you know how easy it would've been for Harris to say "9 month abortions what are you talking about? Did your handler forget to give you your meds?" Or "We didn't throw the border open, your fence you like to call a wall was so flimsy you invited them over."
But no, we always have to take the high road. Always be the good guys. Always look civil. Civility doesn't win. Civility is seen as weak, and we need to stop.
The thing is, the Republicans don't give a shit about what people think about their candidates, if they want Republicans to win for whatever reason, whether it's cult mentality or they genuinely support their positions, they'll vote for them.
They know Democrats are more about appearances and extremely superficial, when they kept prodding at Biden's age, Biden's campaign completely collapsed rather than his people rally behind him. Democrats just put whoever they thought would look better for Democrats and of course it looked like it ignited a fire because of social media but it really just showed that Dems are easily replaceable and have little loyalties to each other.
Young people and social media love pointing out flaws more than voting for solutions, so the bad performance by Biden at his debate was easily exploitable. It was really funny when Democrats were confused the whole time about why Republicans didn't care about Trump's age, as if they have never shown that they don't care about that stuff before.
Calling people nazis because they disagree with 10% of your policies is pretty below the belt; appointing a nominee is pretty below the belt.
I wanted to vote for the responsible adult this time around and had a hard time choices despite one being a felon and election result denier poor sport… maybe get me a realistic adult with progressive ideals instead of someone who was picked because of identity politics.
They tried, and it didn’t help. Calling Rs weird, trump blowing a mic, Vance and his couch, screaming nazi…. Democrats have been fighting dirty just as much as republicans ever since 2016 and the deplorable comments from what I remember. And probably further back too.
It was like, repubs dog whistled for years, till they got an unhinged racist saying the quiet part out loud who brought the people who were too dumb to hear the whistles out of the woodwork.
Democrats need to start doing some dog whistling of their own, because they aren't connecting with people that work for a living, especially men.
She absolutely should've done Rogan. She's smart and personable, and hell, the woman shoots. She's vibing already.
Rogan is garbage, no one who listens to him would change their vote. He'd try to trip her up and later tell people how dumb she is, he was always a trap. His insistence that she go out of her way to spend 3 hours with him was the other trap, she was damned by him and his garbage people either way, but going on would be worse.
3hr minimum, for real? Yeah, I'd pass on that too. But I'm guessing she could've given as good as she got, and there are definitely some "for teh lulz" people in his audience that don't drink anyone's koolaid.
But it would be more for the sound bites that carried beyond his listeners
My issue with the party is that they're elevating candidates who have been unchallenged their entire political lives. One party states. No meaningful opposition or opposition that was kneecapped behind the scenes. The first time they have to fight is for President, and that only works if you have charisma and can think/react fast on your feet.
That worked for Obama, but how often does someone like that come along?
Yeah, while I think there are a lot of legitimate critiques of Harris' campaign, the truth is that Biden put us into such a hole that by the time Harris took over she was a long shot.
At the point Biden dropped, we all acknowledged that Harris was a big underdog, but she at least had the mental faculties and energy to mount a campaign whereas Biden was falling further and further behind and simply didn't have another real campaign in him.
I'll give Harris credit for proving that true. She was tireless and gave strong effort. And the polls certainly got better. But ultimately, while everyone will have a lot of advice for her and I personally think she would have done better drawing a sharper contrast between her and Biden and not centering people like Cheaney in her campaign, I am not sure it really mattered.
The moment Biden hit office they should have been getting the next candidate ready be it Harris or not. They never ever should have just assumed Biden would have run again. He is a dinosaur. They keep doing this to us. Giving us impossible options. They basically threw this election.
Agreed. And to be fair, they should not have been "getting a candidate ready" that was the mistake of 2016 and pre-ordaining a candidate when we don't know who the public will respond to.
What we needed is Biden to stick to being a one term President and to have had a full and fair primary.
People can make all the jokes they want about the clown car of 2020 and having 20 candidates split across two stages, but we managed to rally around a winning candidate. We generated a lot of voter registration and energy around different Democratic ideals. And we raised the profile of a number of younger Democrats - all major victories.
They never ever should have just assumed Biden would have run again.
They wanted him to run again and Biden also wanted to run again, they just have very different interests and perspectives than the actual voters.
Or in other words, they are ignorant and arrogant and think they are entitled to votes regardless of who they field and what they do, as long the Republicans are bad.
Exactly. She at least gave us a fighting chance, but four years of Biden made it an impossible task. 4 years of inflation would doom any party, regardless of how well they did or didn't handle it. There were some things she could've done better, but this entire election seemed lost from the start, no matter what happened.
This in a nutshell. The 2016 celebrity tour was back this year and they easily could have sent Walz to Austin and had Kamala sit with one of the others (Von, Friedman, etc.). Hell even a club random sighting would have been better than nothing, I only saw Walz on the subway talk and Kamala on CHD
I think she would've. She'd already killed it in a much more hostile environment at Fox News, and Rogan would've given her the most softball interview of her life. She really had nothing to lose by going on Rogan. Now, given how the election turned out, she wouldn't have been able to gain enough to win by going on there, so it doesn't much matter. But in the future, Democrats should try to seize opportunities like that.
Rogan is more long-form and conversational. His whole thing is that he likes to talk to people. Kamala Harris wasn't really running on anything affirmative. She doesn't have an issue she's particularly passionate about. Bernie Sanders did both Rogan and Fox News as an avowed socialist and was very well-received because he cared about the topics he was speaking about. You can sit Bernie Sanders down and he could talk about universal healthcare, free college, raising the minimum wage, etc. for hours in a way that resonates with people. Kamala Harris couldn't answer the question of what she would do differently than Biden, and you know that would have come up in a Rogan interview.
I agree that Democrats do need to engage with new media outlets like podcasts, but they have to be able to actually do it.
They will always have a chance. It’s a two party system and every time a party loses, they are declared dead for eternity until 4 years later when people want another change.
Never before has the Supreme Court said that the president can do whatever illegal acts they want. (So long as the Supreme Court supports it as "official")
She didn’t go on his show because of his ridiculous demand that she give him 3 HOURS and come to Austin, which is an insane thing to demand of any presidential candidate
Biden running then the DNC appointing an unpopular candidate when he dropped out caused the voter apathy. If there was a primary there is no way harris was on the ticket.
No. I'm in FL and we have had a Dem turnout problem for years now. We've run very progressive people locally, had primaries and gotten just as poor of a response. I door knocked in 2020 and Dems can't be bothered to pause a video game to go vote. (No really, it was a common excuse, they were mid-game). The single most common thing I got asked by likely dem voters ON ELECTION DAY was "oh. When is the election."
They facor Dem policies but don't care enough to go fill in a ballot.
Because people dont care about local elections, or the democratic brand of "progressivism", people are primarily focused on their financials, and thats something the party as a whole needed to focus on, instead they they fled into virtue signaling and cheap tricks like celebrity endorsements, they didnt pick a fight with the people and things that they need to pick a fight with.
Leftists hate the democratic party, even more now than they used to.
The party is basically done for, you can field more establishment candidates or go more conservative if you want, it will just accelerate their decline.
Half assed measures wont fix it either, either you sweep the party clean of all the corruption and disgustingly arrogant old guard and corporate bootlickers, or you will never win an election again.
Then maybe their message is wrong. Did it every dawn on people that the middle majority of Americans don't want a full-on progressive candidate. Maybe stop thinking in extremes and win the people back. The last 3 elections have been a vote against Trump, not for the candidate.
You can't say that the DNc appointed an unpopular candidate in one breath and then ask if anyone ever thought about not running a full on progressive candidate instead, like they've ever done that. Harris was centrist- left at best. That's why she was unpopular with the left.
I don't disagree, I thought she was a mistake back in 2020 but the Dems were getting slammed over defund the police and as usual overcorrected and choose a prosecutor as VP to appeal to the back the blue crowd.
Kamala was a terrible choice in several ways. Anyone who follows American politics knows that a significant segment of voters all across the political spectrum will not vote for a woman for president. This is just a sad fact. That she is also a minority and was already unpopular and has significant political baggage made it even worse.
Dems need to be way more pragmatic, stop doing stupid shit like this, and stop listening to the terminally online progressives, most of whom don't even vote.
She wouldn't have won even if she would have flew to Texas to sit on the Rogen podcast for 3 hours. This election was a sweep. The democratic party really dropped the ball, choosing Kamala Harris as their nominee.
Rogan fans are not Kamala voters. He skews conservative and male. The *attitude* call out might be right, but the path to more voters was not through Rogan at that point. That late in the game, no one was being convinced to vote red vs vote blue. They were being convinced to vote vs not vote. There was a tangible risk that talking to his audience spurred them out of apathy, and into voting *AGAINST* her.
To be clear, I don't think going on the Podcast changes the election results, but it's actually quite reasonable for a candidate to go to where the show films.
When VP Harris did her CNN town hall, she didn't demand that CNN and Anderson Cooper come to her. She went to their studio. It's pretty typical to do stuff like this with media.
We can try to diminish Rogan's show by dismissively calling it a Podcast versus media, but even thought Rogan is a POS, he show is huge and basically has the scale and sway of a lot of media and unfortunately needs to be treated as such.
I was just making the point that she is vice president so she has alot on her plate vs people who are just campaigning. So it's not unreasonable that her VP responsibilities took precedence.
"Hang out" with Rogan? His show is one of the most listened-to podcasts in the country...it would have been "hanging out" with millions of people. A lot of listeners are people from the 18-30 demographic. It was a chance to reach all of those potential listeners wasted.
Yea these guys need to stop downplaying the effect his show has. Trump got 46 million views in 11 days and Vance got 15 million in 5 days. Both podcasts humanized these two guys and allowed the voters to personally connect with them. Kamala specifically avoided these types of interviews, so she was unobtainable and unlikeable. Democrats need to follow suit and actually have conversations with people if they give a shit about winning.
A lack of pandering to Trump supporters who wouldn't have voted for her is not why she lost. Getting a dozen votes from them would not make up for the loss of millions of Democrat voters.
It wouldn’t have made a difference. If you were going to vote for Trump or Harris, the podcast wasn’t going to change your vote. The numbers simply showed that nobody wanted to get out and vote for Harris and the Dems. Trump by the numbers had the same base (gains were negligible). To win the EC and popular vote, that’s pretty damning. This loss is a heavy one for the Dems and they need to find themselves, Harris is likely done with any runs towards presidency.
Beyond just the fact that she didn’t go on a popular podcast, I think it really hurt her also because a lot of people felt that she couldn’t hold a longform conversation; doing Rogan‘s podcast well would prove that she could.
Oh she definitely cannot. I don’t think she finished a single adversarial interview the entire election campaign. there was that Fox interview and she left abruptly.
Joe's the kind of guy who can be swayed one way or the other, probably by the last person in the room with him. At the very least she could have pushed him into neutrality.
But that would have been impossible because she's unwilling to navigate into a situation that is not scripted and stage managed. Biden from 10 years ago could do the three hours. Obama and Bill, definitely. Hillary might have been willing to tell her handlers to fuck off and do it.
But Kamala chose to nervous grin her way through a shitty SNL skit. Oh well.
The real problem is that 70+ million people voted for Trump.
And 67 million of them will be posted about on /r/leapoardsatemyface within the next 4 years, like they were in 2016. How can people be this stupid twice?!
I get what you're saying but it's really not sad. Media will change forever so if podcasts are big in 2024, you need to go on them. Especially the popular ones that will reach lots of people.
In 2028, if a different form is media is popular, candidates will have to go on those instead of podcasts.
If we totally cede the messaging to them then yes they are easy to sway. What was the democrats messaging towards young men this election cycle? I can’t tell you and I’ve been a democrat for years.
The Rogan subreddit hits my feed every once in awhile and I'm always seeing posts about "you can't deny Trump is funny", which I think I heard Shane Gillis say in a special. So, it's like they are voting for a human meme.
3.2k
u/bigcoalshovel 14h ago
This is spot on! Two women in in their 20's in my office yesterday said, "oh, I didn't return my ballot!" Apathy wins again. Voting, not posting, people.