This is absolutely correct, but I'd go further. I was watching Jen Psaki's show last night and just getting more and more frustrated with the topics and guests just tiptoeing around "is this normal?". Everyone seemed so weak. No one cares about what you're talking about. Get Tim Walz on there and let him call Trump a pedophile and shame him about protecting pedophiles. Mock these people! You can actually drive a wedge between Trump and the maga chuds by hammering this stuff all day. They care about this stuff! Trump clearly doesn't want to talk about it, so talk about it constantly! I feel like I'm losing my mind...democrats wouldn't know a win if it punched them in the face.
Why not call Trump’s assault on healthcare TRUMPNOCARE? By referring to it as “Trumpcare” the reader or listener believes there is a healthcare program … where in reality there is a vanishing one leading to “no care”.
The sizzle draws them in and the steak keeps them there. That is still true. What has changed is that the Dems seem to forget that. Current Dems think the spectacle game is beneath them. People like Rogan appear to favor Trump, because Rogan and Trump and Rogan listeners speak the same language and not that they are allied on policy. People have concluded that the Dems can't hear them, and don't know how to talk to them. Therefore the policy issue never gets to come up. One reason I am so huge on healthcare is that the steak has its own sizzle. It will sell even with our crappy sales force. Bring in Rogan, Theo Vonn, (in my opinion already very liberal), and other and we have a new game.
Now that Democrats have finally understood the salience—as they say—of Epstein, maybe they can get the Times and the Post to actually acknowledge the story. Trump's history with the guy is so obviously a huge potential problem for him—bigger than Medicaid, deportations, or anything else—and the MSM barely covers it
It was also bizarre to hear Rogan act like he couldn't believe Elon said Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Is it credible that Rogan has never seen any of the photos or videos of Trump and Epstein together? Or is that a case of him not wanting to anger MAGA?
The fact that MAGA has somehow erased Trump from the Epstein story and turned it against Dems is mind-boggling, and has to be an indictment of Dems at some level
Couldn't agree more, I do think there's a sense of not wanting to "stoop down" and get muddy. But this is where most people engage nowadays. Most people don't spend their time thinking about healthcare, most people don't listen to political speeches or read policy, but people do watch 5-60 second clips of people talking about Epstein, or the floods, or WWIII, or tariffs, and they listen to podcasts where that might be a 5 minute segment. Democrats need to be a part of those segments if they want to try and gather folks for the important things like Medicaid or immigration.
For example, I really care about minimum parking requirements and how we should get rid of them. If I just go to a random person in my city and start yapping about how crazy it is we require 1 parking space for every 15 lineal feet of pew space, people will ignore me. But it's not uncommon to here people complaining about rent being too high. I know something about that, we talk about it, and then I mention offhand "you know they can't build as many units in apartment buildings because of parking mandates. Listen to this, the city requires a spot for..."
Democrats seem to want to talk at people, it would be nice for them to listen, engage, and then complement the discussion with the things we care about.
Also coffeezilla (crypto investigator) doing the Lord's work on his second channel talking about the Epstein cover up.
In other words, Dems have to dumb down their message because so many Americans are too dumb or disinterested to care about policies. Too many people pay more attention to the Kardashians and reality tv than to what really affects their lives and the world.
I'm not sure this is, at its core, only a dumb or trivial issue. To recap: it has been alleged -- heck, let's face it, proved -- that Jeffrey Epstein, serial sexual abuser and trafficker -- flew a significant chunk of the US elite around on his jet for a couple of decades. There, they all had ample opportunity to witness and participate in both crimes and scenes of extraordinary corruption and depravity. What does that mean for a country? I don't know. But I don't think nothing. Does it mean that everyone who hung around with Epstein knew how bad he was, participated in his trafficking, and is guilty of crimes? Probably not. But some of them surely did. And it seems to me to be in the public interest to open up the files on that. Yes, MAGA conspiracyed the hell out of this, despite the fact that one Donald J. Trump was Epstein's biggest friend. But if nothing else, to remove the innuendo around the innocent and also to really fix the blame where it ought to be, the information should be public.
Yes, it's not policy. But the morality of our leaders actually should still matter. I would admit this is a more tangible issue than, say, the corporate tax rate, but I wouldn't call it dumb just because it hits different.
“The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertainment.. On television, religion, politics, news, athletics, education, and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business."
-Neil Postman
(That said, I'd debate the premise that even on substantive issues, Ds have compelling policy ideas. For example, I have no idea how Democrats plan to reverse drops in test scores or what their plan is to tackle cost-of-living issues.)
I'm glad to see that you essentially think that D messaging has got to get more toward the "All of the Above" end of the spectrum in terms of channels to communicate better with marginal/low-information voters. I think you're right about this.
Separately, I want to note that different appeals will work with different audiences, in different regions, in different elections. I think, therefore, that a lot of this additional messaging has to be locally sourced and crafted to appeal to specific voting populations. This cannot be a one-size-fits-all undertaking driven only by national consultants and national party structures concentrated in the Beltway or on the coasts.
Finally, IMO, the candidates have to "feel authentic" to the voters and not seem massaged into a bland mediocrity. I think we've seen evidence already that voters want candidates who are *genuinely* fired up and ready to go.
Maybe now is a good time to start again branding Republicans as "weird"?--Trump, Vance, Hegseth, Noem, Duffy, Patel, Bongino and all the way down the line?
"Weird" lis a great word for encapsulating all the many repulsive aspects of Trumpy Republicanism.
Hmmm. I suggest you’re massively over-estimating the interest of US citizens in any sort of serious policy.
Most Americans have been materially comfortable for their whole lives. They assume it will always be that way. This is why they don’t care about Trump’s policies. They assume none of it matters to them and never will. They might be wrong, but good luck convincing them.
People tune into Rogan (and all the other light entertainment) because they’re bored and he is the sort of character who appeals to their child-like minds.
My instinct is that pandering to these people in any way will be counterproductive. A better strategy would be to go on Rogan and tell his audience to grow up. Most of them would be offended, but some might agree. And it would at least be an authentic way to communicate.
Good article. "Better late than never" is right. I wish there was some effort to claw back some early 2010's "the Internet is good because it allows us to talk directly to people rather than go through crusty intermediaries" that was popular in progressive circles. I guess it was never really popular in the establishment, I'm just tired of doomer bullshit. Get in the ring and you might win! You also might get sideswiped with some weird Internet deep cut, but you're not going to win if you don't try!
Obama was popular. Clinton was popular. Bidens 2020 vote total exceeded Trump 2024 with 3x trumps margin. Kamala was not the. candidate until the convention, dems should recognize that as the biggest problem in 2024, dems lost in the lost debate worst performance possible. yes its time for a younger more energized candidate, but first in the mid terms, and aiming at vulnerable republicans with winning messages district by district.
This is absolutely correct, but I'd go further. I was watching Jen Psaki's show last night and just getting more and more frustrated with the topics and guests just tiptoeing around "is this normal?". Everyone seemed so weak. No one cares about what you're talking about. Get Tim Walz on there and let him call Trump a pedophile and shame him about protecting pedophiles. Mock these people! You can actually drive a wedge between Trump and the maga chuds by hammering this stuff all day. They care about this stuff! Trump clearly doesn't want to talk about it, so talk about it constantly! I feel like I'm losing my mind...democrats wouldn't know a win if it punched them in the face.
Why not call Trump’s assault on healthcare TRUMPNOCARE? By referring to it as “Trumpcare” the reader or listener believes there is a healthcare program … where in reality there is a vanishing one leading to “no care”.
It makes me sad that 21st century Americans are so shallow.
Exaxtly. I think our shallowness and complacency directly affected the election of 47.
The sizzle draws them in and the steak keeps them there. That is still true. What has changed is that the Dems seem to forget that. Current Dems think the spectacle game is beneath them. People like Rogan appear to favor Trump, because Rogan and Trump and Rogan listeners speak the same language and not that they are allied on policy. People have concluded that the Dems can't hear them, and don't know how to talk to them. Therefore the policy issue never gets to come up. One reason I am so huge on healthcare is that the steak has its own sizzle. It will sell even with our crappy sales force. Bring in Rogan, Theo Vonn, (in my opinion already very liberal), and other and we have a new game.
You make sense. Now can you influence the Dem party leaders?
I think I do from time to time…
Now that Democrats have finally understood the salience—as they say—of Epstein, maybe they can get the Times and the Post to actually acknowledge the story. Trump's history with the guy is so obviously a huge potential problem for him—bigger than Medicaid, deportations, or anything else—and the MSM barely covers it
It was also bizarre to hear Rogan act like he couldn't believe Elon said Trump's name was in the Epstein files. Is it credible that Rogan has never seen any of the photos or videos of Trump and Epstein together? Or is that a case of him not wanting to anger MAGA?
The fact that MAGA has somehow erased Trump from the Epstein story and turned it against Dems is mind-boggling, and has to be an indictment of Dems at some level
Couldn't agree more, I do think there's a sense of not wanting to "stoop down" and get muddy. But this is where most people engage nowadays. Most people don't spend their time thinking about healthcare, most people don't listen to political speeches or read policy, but people do watch 5-60 second clips of people talking about Epstein, or the floods, or WWIII, or tariffs, and they listen to podcasts where that might be a 5 minute segment. Democrats need to be a part of those segments if they want to try and gather folks for the important things like Medicaid or immigration.
For example, I really care about minimum parking requirements and how we should get rid of them. If I just go to a random person in my city and start yapping about how crazy it is we require 1 parking space for every 15 lineal feet of pew space, people will ignore me. But it's not uncommon to here people complaining about rent being too high. I know something about that, we talk about it, and then I mention offhand "you know they can't build as many units in apartment buildings because of parking mandates. Listen to this, the city requires a spot for..."
Democrats seem to want to talk at people, it would be nice for them to listen, engage, and then complement the discussion with the things we care about.
Also coffeezilla (crypto investigator) doing the Lord's work on his second channel talking about the Epstein cover up.
So I’m not the only one getting WWII videos in my YouTube feed….
In other words, Dems have to dumb down their message because so many Americans are too dumb or disinterested to care about policies. Too many people pay more attention to the Kardashians and reality tv than to what really affects their lives and the world.
I'm not sure this is, at its core, only a dumb or trivial issue. To recap: it has been alleged -- heck, let's face it, proved -- that Jeffrey Epstein, serial sexual abuser and trafficker -- flew a significant chunk of the US elite around on his jet for a couple of decades. There, they all had ample opportunity to witness and participate in both crimes and scenes of extraordinary corruption and depravity. What does that mean for a country? I don't know. But I don't think nothing. Does it mean that everyone who hung around with Epstein knew how bad he was, participated in his trafficking, and is guilty of crimes? Probably not. But some of them surely did. And it seems to me to be in the public interest to open up the files on that. Yes, MAGA conspiracyed the hell out of this, despite the fact that one Donald J. Trump was Epstein's biggest friend. But if nothing else, to remove the innuendo around the innocent and also to really fix the blame where it ought to be, the information should be public.
Yes, it's not policy. But the morality of our leaders actually should still matter. I would admit this is a more tangible issue than, say, the corporate tax rate, but I wouldn't call it dumb just because it hits different.
“The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertainment.. On television, religion, politics, news, athletics, education, and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business."
-Neil Postman
(That said, I'd debate the premise that even on substantive issues, Ds have compelling policy ideas. For example, I have no idea how Democrats plan to reverse drops in test scores or what their plan is to tackle cost-of-living issues.)
I'm glad to see that you essentially think that D messaging has got to get more toward the "All of the Above" end of the spectrum in terms of channels to communicate better with marginal/low-information voters. I think you're right about this.
Separately, I want to note that different appeals will work with different audiences, in different regions, in different elections. I think, therefore, that a lot of this additional messaging has to be locally sourced and crafted to appeal to specific voting populations. This cannot be a one-size-fits-all undertaking driven only by national consultants and national party structures concentrated in the Beltway or on the coasts.
Finally, IMO, the candidates have to "feel authentic" to the voters and not seem massaged into a bland mediocrity. I think we've seen evidence already that voters want candidates who are *genuinely* fired up and ready to go.
Maybe now is a good time to start again branding Republicans as "weird"?--Trump, Vance, Hegseth, Noem, Duffy, Patel, Bongino and all the way down the line?
"Weird" lis a great word for encapsulating all the many repulsive aspects of Trumpy Republicanism.
Hmmm. I suggest you’re massively over-estimating the interest of US citizens in any sort of serious policy.
Most Americans have been materially comfortable for their whole lives. They assume it will always be that way. This is why they don’t care about Trump’s policies. They assume none of it matters to them and never will. They might be wrong, but good luck convincing them.
People tune into Rogan (and all the other light entertainment) because they’re bored and he is the sort of character who appeals to their child-like minds.
My instinct is that pandering to these people in any way will be counterproductive. A better strategy would be to go on Rogan and tell his audience to grow up. Most of them would be offended, but some might agree. And it would at least be an authentic way to communicate.
Trumpology Vs Abrahami Accords
Good article. "Better late than never" is right. I wish there was some effort to claw back some early 2010's "the Internet is good because it allows us to talk directly to people rather than go through crusty intermediaries" that was popular in progressive circles. I guess it was never really popular in the establishment, I'm just tired of doomer bullshit. Get in the ring and you might win! You also might get sideswiped with some weird Internet deep cut, but you're not going to win if you don't try!
Obama was popular. Clinton was popular. Bidens 2020 vote total exceeded Trump 2024 with 3x trumps margin. Kamala was not the. candidate until the convention, dems should recognize that as the biggest problem in 2024, dems lost in the lost debate worst performance possible. yes its time for a younger more energized candidate, but first in the mid terms, and aiming at vulnerable republicans with winning messages district by district.