Summary
CNN analyst Van Jones attributed Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump in the presidential election to the Democrats’ ineffective media strategy.
Jones argued that while Democrats focused on traditional campaigning, Republicans built a powerful alternative media ecosystem, leveraging podcasts, online shows, and platforms like X to reach key voter demographics, especially young men.
Trump bypassed mainstream outlets, appearing on popular programs such as Joe Rogan’s podcast, which helped him dominate swing states.
I’m not buying it. He won because the electorate specifically wants a vandal to wreck shit instead of an establishment figure who also happens to be a woman. Clearly, there are additional factors, but that’s mainly it.
Completely disagree. I know tons of conservatives that lovingly voted for trump, or voted for him “for the country.” I’ve never even met a single rebel voter.
Small sample size, but still.
The election was a popularity contest, people live in their phone bubbles, and Democrats campaigned like its the 1950s. People voted for Trump thinking he’s a hero, eyes wide open, because that’s what their information environment is.
Hotter take, but the genie is out of the bottle, and Dems are going to keep losing until they start campaigning like influencer con artists. Fight fire with fire.
If they don’t like it? Tough. They should have regulated social media when they had the chance instead of taking their money.
Ok but anyone who’s ever heard Trump say anything at all and still thinks he’s a good choice is mentally disabled.
I remember hearing how great Kamala’s TikTok presence was. It’s hard to say, though, when these services all push you into a bubble. I saw barely any pro-trump messaging online. Partly because I’d rather not be online than watch that bullshit, but also because it all got filtered to the “other side of TikTok.”
I saw barely any pro-trump messaging online. Partly because I’d rather not be online than watch that bullshit, but also because it all got filtered to the “other side of TikTok.”
Bingo.
Even Lemmy is (generally) a massive US left bubble, without any criticism its users honestly need to hear. And I fear the whole idea of the fediverse is going to reinforce that going forward.
“It’s the economy, stupid”.
It can be both.
I think Van Jones has a point here, but you’re not wrong either. It’s a big mess and we’re still pulling apart the knots, but for sure the Media ecosystem is part of our reality.
This campaign raised a billion dollars, and pissed it all away.
And then some $5m in debt
Ever wonder about how the rallies were really low attendance but Kamala’s were bumping? What if you had two entire social networks that were at a fever pitch for months, non stop? How about three? Just three 24/7 online rallies, unending, with most of America logged on and posting every single day?
My take from the outside (i.e. not American), so hopefully I can be objective.
American politics and therefore the American electorate appears almost entirely tribal: you’re either on the red or the blue team (or a third party team that is sufficiently small to ignore.)
The swing states just happen to be states where the balance between red and blue is pretty even, allowing outsized impact of relatively minor variances in voter turnout.
Tribalism within the red team appears far far stronger than within the blue team. Strong enough that anti-democratic actions that support the team are acceptable; e.g. voter suppression, gerrymandering, failing to adjust the electoral college based on asymmetric population growth.
The states’ electoral systems are corrupted not by anti-democratic actions, but because such actions are possible. The crisis is that the system that was required when states had to send representatives in person by rail or horse to the capital is obsolete.
TL;DR: y’all need some constitutional amendment and electoral reform.
TL;DR: y’all need some constitutional amendment and electoral reform.
Best I can do is fascism and open corruption.
There’s other stuff too, but you got a large part of it. It is sports politics more than anything else, and the more left side has all sorts of fractures within that interferes with cooperation while the right side locks in step when called to act.
I will say that the US doesn’t have a monopoly on such behavior. Watching politics in Europe there’s some commonality of political games as well, the teams are just made up differently and play with different rules. Similar frustration from the fans though when important issues come up and things get stupid.
The US has political baseball where the blue team is a collection of players with different strategies who want to play the game in different ways.
Internationally, a lot of countries play cricket.
Some countries play Go.
… the US doesn’t have a monopoly on such behavior.
Of course! Though I can’t think of another democratic country that quite as readily and enthusiastically wear political affiliations on their sleeve (literally).
It’s a dedication to a team that I personally only experience in terms of the dominant sports.
I’m not sure I would call it media. It’s a pretty vast, right wing conspiracy theory echo chamber. The more mainstream part of it is Fox and podcasts. It isn’t just advertising and talking on podcasts. It’s the mass conspiracy theory, misinformation, disinformation, and radicalization distributed on Facebook, telegram, Xhitter, etc. I’m even getting “they want you to eat bugs” ads on YouTube from who knows.
