Who do you think's going to win the US presidential election?

[garbon]

I share Minsky's frustration that we're clearly not dealing with rational people.  A lot of voters' logic, if we take it at face value, really is no smarter than Jews voting for Hitler because of anti-Semitism under Wiemar Republic.

That said, voters are like that, and if you're in the game of politics, you have to figure out how to deal with that, no matter how infuriating it is to have to deal with that.  Psychiatrists shouldn't go "how the fuck am I going to deal with my clients, they're fucking crazy", and neither should politicians.  That's not to say that psychiatrist's clients aren't fucking crazy.

.

I don't know how you do it though. I'm not sure what is the stimulant that turns I'm going to focus on make life more affordable for you to as appealing as they are eating the cats and dogs.

[garbon]

I also don't know how to incentives news media to use editorial discretion to focus on actual news. After all when you have a crazy uncle, you don't have endless family discussions about every crazy thing he says.

[DGuller]

I don't know how you do it though. I'm not sure what is the stimulant that turns I'm going to focus on make life more affordable for you to as appealing as they are eating the cats and dogs.

I don't know either.  This is why political talent is rare and valuable.  All I myself can do is not scorn people with political talent, but embrace them.

If I were to guess, we have to take lessons from marketing.  Good products with good marketing will do better than poor products with good marketing, but either will do way better than good products with poor marketing.  To me it has been very obvious that Democrats had a good product over the last four years, but clearly it hasn't been obvious to enough people.  Good products with poor marketing will always have some recognition among the highly interested groups, but they'll only have cult following, not a mass following.

[Zoupa]

I think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

[Barrister]

I think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

Alternative media - totally agree.  Whether Harris should have agreed to go on Rogan will be debated for a long time, as just one example.  I get the argument of "she's the sitting VP, he should come to her", but, well...  FWIW I think she would have done well on Rogan, who is hardly a really tough interview.

Dems should also be flooding the digital "airwaves" with ads on social media next time around.

"Just say some crazy shit" I mean I disagree.  You do have to be somewhat careful about over-learning the lessons of the past.  A 2028 election is going to be different.  It's quite possible that in 2028 voters will be hungering for a truth-teller after the non-stop bullshit of Trump (just a reminder - it's been 3 days and the war in Ukraine is still going on, and that wall with Mexico never was built).

[HVC]

Yeah, the Joe Rogan thing was a bad move. Whatever I personally think of Rogan (he's an idiot) he has a huge audience. In this case she needed him, he didn't need her.

[DGuller]

I think the Rogan mistake was part of a bigger mistake, and that is the old school strategy of being very careful with what you say, and controlling the environment of when and how you say it.  When you go a long-form podcast, it's very hard to keep saying something controlled for a couple of hours, especially when you're an over-coached politician of little substance (which Harris probably was).

I think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

[Caliga]

I think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

Yeah, I was going to post this the day after the election and I forgot.  I was talking to my (sobbing) wife after the election was called for Trump and telling her if I was the DNC, here's one thing I would consider doing:

1. Disband the Democratic Party.
2. Found a new party called "The Cut Taxes to -1,000%, Execute Everyone You Hate, and Ban All Behaviors You Dislike" Party.
3.  All ex-Democrats immediately join this new party.
4.  Do absolutely nothing different from before in terms of proposing legislation the Democrats would have proposed, etc.

I was joking of course, but I was speaking to the fact that a lot, maybe even the majority, of American voters only seem to care about what you say, even if it's a lie (and they might even know it's a lie, too!), not what you do.  So feed them the bile they want to hear, and you win, no matter what you actually have done and intend to do.

[Barrister]

I think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

Do they love politicians like that, or do they just love Trump?

Because I can't think of any other examples out there.

[HVC]

I'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

That being said, Rogan isn't exactly a hard hitting interviewer. You tell him something and he believes you with the eagerness of a toddler.

[Barrister]

I'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

That being said, Rogan isn't exactly a hard hitting interviewer. You tell him something and he believes you with the eagerness of a toddler.

Bernie went on Rogan 4+ years ago and Rogan just ate it up.

[DGuller]

I think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

Do they love politicians like that, or do they just love Trump?

Because I can't think of any other examples out there.

I don't think that many tried.  It's a huge gamble to take with your political career, what if it does only work for Trump?  I imagine also that a lot of people who would try it would be authentic in a very coached and careful way, because that's all they know.

I do have a gut feeling though that this is the age of authenticity, and that carefully crafted talking points get in the way of emotional connection.  Maybe there is more to the formula than just authenticity, maybe you also an art to exactly how you tell people to fuck off when inevitably you do create a sound bite and get roasted with it.

[Savonarola]

I'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

I don't think that's true; most of our pundits were more than willing to excuse Biden's many, many, many gaffes.  Even his "Garbage" comment in the final days of this election was hand-waved away by almost all left of center pundits.  (Chris Cizilla being a notable exception.)

[The Minsky Moment]

Chris Christie is very much like that.  He had some success but not as much as Trump, even though he is clearly brighter and more effective, and has achieved more concretely in public life. Yes there was bridgegate, which was pretty awful but in context wouldn't crack a top 10 of Trump scandals.

The secret to Trump is not just his "authenticity" though that is part of it.  Another part is that there is no substance to him, he is a political empty vessel that channels emotion and feel, so that others who share their feelings can project their own sentiments on to them.  It's why he draws support from plutocratic elites who want to keep the proles down, and working stiffs who want to flip the bird to the "elites"

[PJL]

I think I've already gone through the five stages of grief re a second Trump term. TBH, the denial was probably the week before the election giving me false hope. That lasted until I went to bed. By the following morning it was not so much anger, but a 'oh fuck not again' moment. I then had a brief bargaining period where I was hoping that Trump's win would be mitigated by the House results, but that soon evapourated. Then a long week or so of depression and now finally acceptance. Though I suspect I will vacillate between the two between now and inauguration day.

I fear many on the left will be stuck on the anger phase. I do think this is one thing they need to let go off. Certain sections have been too angry in recent years, and they need to be more sorrowful instead. Otherwise it will just antagonise and encourage the right.