Cohn out with a piece this morning stating that while turnout was the likely reason Harris lost the national PV, it wasn't the issue in the 7 swing states, where both candidates eclipsed 2020 numbers.
The main issue is, and this has been the number #1 thing I've been hammering on since the morning after, is we got creamed by people who ge…
Cohn out with a piece this morning stating that while turnout was the likely reason Harris lost the national PV, it wasn't the issue in the 7 swing states, where both candidates eclipsed 2020 numbers.
The main issue is, and this has been the number #1 thing I've been hammering on since the morning after, is we got creamed by people who get their news through "non-traditional" sources i.e. social media, which was likely a reversal from 2020. Conservative disinformation now dominates podcast/video-scroll land, and until we find a way to counter it, we're in big trouble.
I don't think that is as difficult as we make it out to be or our biggest problem. Obama dominated "non-traditional" sources and new forms of media during his terms. Biden as an elderly institutionalist was a uniquely poor fit for it and Harris only had 100 days to do everything. We get someone moderately tech-savvy and charismatic person building an 18-month campaign I think we can reach people in non-traditional spaces. That may not include everyone lost to the conspiracy feedback loop but enough to win sure.
I kinda agree, with the qualification that we’re well behind the 8 ball on what the right has built in the last 5-6 years and how they’ve cultivated the “apolitical” Rogan types to be their gateway drug.
That said, I’m not sure the DNC is even the vehicle to combat this
I agree to some degree on for lack of a better term the "apolitical media infostructure" though I think it matters less than a candidate who can appeal to the audiences in these spaces but I also agree the DNC is not the vehicle for this either.
Imho, it needs to become such a vehicle! This is why we need somebody like Ben Wikler as Chair of the DNC. The last thing we need is Rahm Emmanuel or similar.
I mean I don't think the DNC can create apolitical podcasts for PresiDem nominee and others to go on. I think you might have mentioned it first here but I really like the idea of the shadow cabinet which can go out and do interviews and if their expertise is relevant hit some of the apolitical podcasts and other media seamlessly. I can see Shadow secs. relevant to tech on tech podcasts, commerce on finance ones etc.
Most other countries run their full Presidential campaigns in far less than 107 days. I don't buy that an additional 500 days of preparation would likely have made any difference.
Sure but those are entire electorates in other countries that are used to short campaigns. For this subset of voters we call them apolitical podcast voters, I'm not 100% sure but I think Trump going to these spaces as much as he did over the last 9 years vs. Harris only able to devote a fraction of her 100 days did make a difference and Biden was a uniquely poor fit for them. I think having a shadow cabinet and others available to these spaces would be a good start though only part of the answer to one problem.
I agree partially, but I think this understates the shift how those platforms are run. The major social media platforms in particular have seen their leadership take abrupt hard-right turns.
Zuckerberg didn't seem to care much about politics before, but Facebook and all of the other Meta platforms have a new preference for pushing right wing perspectives compared to the Obama years. Twitter was bought out by Musk, and it's undeniable what he's been doing there. Reddit's ownership has changed and is now conservative. I don't know if Youtube does it as an intentional goal or if it's a sideproduct of the attention grifters being predominantly conservative, but I've known many people that get inundated with conservative content in their feeds despite never seeking it out. Not sure what Tiktok is up to as I don't know anyone that uses it and haven't looked into it.
This mirrors the change in many traditional media outlets, where the ownership is more and more willing to put their finger on the scales for their favored conservative ideology.
The problem is much harder today than it was 15 years ago. We can absolutely improve on this front and it should be done. It's just the deck is stacked against us and our results ceiling is lower than it once was, yet requires greater investment to get there.
And I believe Univision, perhaps the most important Spanish-language news channel, now has new conservative ownership.
Imho, we need to encourage democracy-minded billionaires and millionaires to purchase news media and to invest in amplifying fact-based, truth-seek news.
Related to this, on a small scale - Stephen King is reliable lefty. He also owns several radio stations in Maine that he played music on. He's now shutting them down/selling them off. The man has very deep pockets, he could easily keep running them as local left leaning talk radio that could help slightly in the state. I wish I knew him and could encourage him to think wider.
If sold, we need to make sure they’re not snapped up by the radio equivalents of Sinclair Broadcast. Radio stations are not expensive! Surely we can encourage another millionaire to invest in them.
Dems dominated social media spaces in the Obama yeara because political social media in the early-mid teens was largely the sphere of college educated geeks and think tankers. The barrier being funny cat videos and Russian propaganda hadn't broken yet (it really didn't until the last few years); now it has.
Once the tariffs and mass deportations go through reality is gonna smack them right in the face that I don't think any amount of disinformation will be able to overcome. I could be wrong though.
Which podcasts, though? I can only speak for myself but the podcasts I listen to are drag queens and true crime and that’d be preaching to the choir while the hosts also specifically try to come off as not pro-Democrat. “All politicians suck.” Our people seem terrible at hyping our own people at the political level bc they want to be above that.
In the primaries, certainly podcasts that preach to the choir for liberal and Democratic Party causes.
However, in the general election the ideal podcasts should be where Democrats are not preaching to the choir and instead get more listeners who don’t necessarily pay attention in the primaries, are not politically savvy or who don’t represent the base. This gives the presidential candidates the options to expand their reach.
Joe Rogan’s podcast may be where Democrats don’t want to go but Rogan himself is pro-universal healthcare and socially liberal on numerous issues even while he’s libertarian on others. There may be podcast watchers who may hold similar views as Rogan but could watch a Democratic Presidential Candidate appeal to them if he/she plays the cards right.
It is a mistake to blame it mostly on ''non-traditional'' sources of media. Dems made deliberate choices to appeal to high-information voters mostly likely to still follow traditional media. And not appeal to less engaged voters that get their news mainly from social media.
Immigration is a good example, where dems priotitized the more pro-immigration high-information voters then anti-immigration lower-information voters. It was not conservative disinformation that made people realize that dems were out of step with their own views on this topic.
Harris and her campaign talked a lot about protecting democracy, something which is much more important to voters following traditional media.
Trump gave a lot more interviews to podcasts and other non-traditional media then Harris. Harris didn't take the chance to go on Joe Rogan.
Gallego in AZ is a great example of how you can appeal to low-information voters, even as a progressive. Like how many dems besides him hosted watch parties for major boxing events or showed up at car shows?
That’s not quite true, although you do make some good points.
In recognition of America’s changed media landscape, a large number of podcasters, influencers and journalists from alternativ media received credentials to attend and cover the Democratic National Convention.
Kamala Harris made many appearances on podcasts, was interviewed by influencers and appeared on Howard Stern. In fact, the NYC and DC-based media were continually bitching that Harris was prioritizing these media venues while ignoring their traditional beltway media!
The Harris-Walz Campaign also had an effective Rapid Response Team posting on Xitter. It also had a team of media-savvy youngsters that created TikTok content that went viral.
Did she actually make many appearances on podcasts? The impression I got (from Dailykos) was that she only went on a handful, mostly in that one week blitz that she did.
Trump went to at least double the amount of podcasts as Harris. Trump went on Joe Rogan which has more reach amongst swing voters then a lot of traditional media combined.
Yes, some journalist complained about not getting enough attention over new media. Which speaks more about their inflated sense of importance then reality.
Looking at viewership traditional beltway media is very much dwarfed by social media amongst swing voters.
A rapid response team on twitter doesn't help if your positions are unappealing to voters getting the news on social media.
You can invest as much as you want in social media. If your positions are not appealing to the people on there you will struggle.
A post going viral because it speaks to the values of swing voters is worth more then 100 sponsored posts.
It is inherently easier to change your positions and run more appealing candidates then changing the media landsscape.
It’s going to be really fascinating to see legacy media in four years considering the demographic death spiral broadcast and even cable news viewership is in
Cohn out with a piece this morning stating that while turnout was the likely reason Harris lost the national PV, it wasn't the issue in the 7 swing states, where both candidates eclipsed 2020 numbers.
The main issue is, and this has been the number #1 thing I've been hammering on since the morning after, is we got creamed by people who get their news through "non-traditional" sources i.e. social media, which was likely a reversal from 2020. Conservative disinformation now dominates podcast/video-scroll land, and until we find a way to counter it, we're in big trouble.
So I guess a question for any of these DNC candidates would be if they have a plan, or even an idea, of how to tackle that problem.
I don't think that is as difficult as we make it out to be or our biggest problem. Obama dominated "non-traditional" sources and new forms of media during his terms. Biden as an elderly institutionalist was a uniquely poor fit for it and Harris only had 100 days to do everything. We get someone moderately tech-savvy and charismatic person building an 18-month campaign I think we can reach people in non-traditional spaces. That may not include everyone lost to the conspiracy feedback loop but enough to win sure.
I kinda agree, with the qualification that we’re well behind the 8 ball on what the right has built in the last 5-6 years and how they’ve cultivated the “apolitical” Rogan types to be their gateway drug.
That said, I’m not sure the DNC is even the vehicle to combat this
I agree to some degree on for lack of a better term the "apolitical media infostructure" though I think it matters less than a candidate who can appeal to the audiences in these spaces but I also agree the DNC is not the vehicle for this either.
Imho, it needs to become such a vehicle! This is why we need somebody like Ben Wikler as Chair of the DNC. The last thing we need is Rahm Emmanuel or similar.
I mean I don't think the DNC can create apolitical podcasts for PresiDem nominee and others to go on. I think you might have mentioned it first here but I really like the idea of the shadow cabinet which can go out and do interviews and if their expertise is relevant hit some of the apolitical podcasts and other media seamlessly. I can see Shadow secs. relevant to tech on tech podcasts, commerce on finance ones etc.
We could call it the Truth Cabinet™.
I don't think the DNC is necessarily the vehicle for running the whole operation. But it could be the vehicle for building the operation that does it.
Most other countries run their full Presidential campaigns in far less than 107 days. I don't buy that an additional 500 days of preparation would likely have made any difference.
Sure but those are entire electorates in other countries that are used to short campaigns. For this subset of voters we call them apolitical podcast voters, I'm not 100% sure but I think Trump going to these spaces as much as he did over the last 9 years vs. Harris only able to devote a fraction of her 100 days did make a difference and Biden was a uniquely poor fit for them. I think having a shadow cabinet and others available to these spaces would be a good start though only part of the answer to one problem.
I actually thought Kamala was winning the Tik Tok game for a bit?
For a bit yes, but the bullshit firehose in late September and then October blunted a lot of that momentum.
That’s always been the hard thing about running against Trump
I agree partially, but I think this understates the shift how those platforms are run. The major social media platforms in particular have seen their leadership take abrupt hard-right turns.
Zuckerberg didn't seem to care much about politics before, but Facebook and all of the other Meta platforms have a new preference for pushing right wing perspectives compared to the Obama years. Twitter was bought out by Musk, and it's undeniable what he's been doing there. Reddit's ownership has changed and is now conservative. I don't know if Youtube does it as an intentional goal or if it's a sideproduct of the attention grifters being predominantly conservative, but I've known many people that get inundated with conservative content in their feeds despite never seeking it out. Not sure what Tiktok is up to as I don't know anyone that uses it and haven't looked into it.
This mirrors the change in many traditional media outlets, where the ownership is more and more willing to put their finger on the scales for their favored conservative ideology.
The problem is much harder today than it was 15 years ago. We can absolutely improve on this front and it should be done. It's just the deck is stacked against us and our results ceiling is lower than it once was, yet requires greater investment to get there.
And I believe Univision, perhaps the most important Spanish-language news channel, now has new conservative ownership.
Imho, we need to encourage democracy-minded billionaires and millionaires to purchase news media and to invest in amplifying fact-based, truth-seek news.
Related to this, on a small scale - Stephen King is reliable lefty. He also owns several radio stations in Maine that he played music on. He's now shutting them down/selling them off. The man has very deep pockets, he could easily keep running them as local left leaning talk radio that could help slightly in the state. I wish I knew him and could encourage him to think wider.
If sold, we need to make sure they’re not snapped up by the radio equivalents of Sinclair Broadcast. Radio stations are not expensive! Surely we can encourage another millionaire to invest in them.
Meta’s ecosystem pushes way less political content than it used to, in fairness. The difference between 2016/20 and today is stark.
The problem really is heavily how YT’s algo is designed. It’s always been, and remains, the biggest problem in this sphere
Dems dominated social media spaces in the Obama yeara because political social media in the early-mid teens was largely the sphere of college educated geeks and think tankers. The barrier being funny cat videos and Russian propaganda hadn't broken yet (it really didn't until the last few years); now it has.
Once the tariffs and mass deportations go through reality is gonna smack them right in the face that I don't think any amount of disinformation will be able to overcome. I could be wrong though.
Democratic Presidential Candidates should do lot of podcasts. Trump capitalized on this.
I don’t think it was enough for Kamala Harris to be on Howard Stern’s show.
Which podcasts, though? I can only speak for myself but the podcasts I listen to are drag queens and true crime and that’d be preaching to the choir while the hosts also specifically try to come off as not pro-Democrat. “All politicians suck.” Our people seem terrible at hyping our own people at the political level bc they want to be above that.
In the primaries, certainly podcasts that preach to the choir for liberal and Democratic Party causes.
However, in the general election the ideal podcasts should be where Democrats are not preaching to the choir and instead get more listeners who don’t necessarily pay attention in the primaries, are not politically savvy or who don’t represent the base. This gives the presidential candidates the options to expand their reach.
Joe Rogan’s podcast may be where Democrats don’t want to go but Rogan himself is pro-universal healthcare and socially liberal on numerous issues even while he’s libertarian on others. There may be podcast watchers who may hold similar views as Rogan but could watch a Democratic Presidential Candidate appeal to them if he/she plays the cards right.
It is a mistake to blame it mostly on ''non-traditional'' sources of media. Dems made deliberate choices to appeal to high-information voters mostly likely to still follow traditional media. And not appeal to less engaged voters that get their news mainly from social media.
Immigration is a good example, where dems priotitized the more pro-immigration high-information voters then anti-immigration lower-information voters. It was not conservative disinformation that made people realize that dems were out of step with their own views on this topic.
Harris and her campaign talked a lot about protecting democracy, something which is much more important to voters following traditional media.
Trump gave a lot more interviews to podcasts and other non-traditional media then Harris. Harris didn't take the chance to go on Joe Rogan.
Gallego in AZ is a great example of how you can appeal to low-information voters, even as a progressive. Like how many dems besides him hosted watch parties for major boxing events or showed up at car shows?
That’s not quite true, although you do make some good points.
In recognition of America’s changed media landscape, a large number of podcasters, influencers and journalists from alternativ media received credentials to attend and cover the Democratic National Convention.
Kamala Harris made many appearances on podcasts, was interviewed by influencers and appeared on Howard Stern. In fact, the NYC and DC-based media were continually bitching that Harris was prioritizing these media venues while ignoring their traditional beltway media!
The Harris-Walz Campaign also had an effective Rapid Response Team posting on Xitter. It also had a team of media-savvy youngsters that created TikTok content that went viral.
Did she actually make many appearances on podcasts? The impression I got (from Dailykos) was that she only went on a handful, mostly in that one week blitz that she did.
Trump went to at least double the amount of podcasts as Harris. Trump went on Joe Rogan which has more reach amongst swing voters then a lot of traditional media combined.
Yes, some journalist complained about not getting enough attention over new media. Which speaks more about their inflated sense of importance then reality.
Looking at viewership traditional beltway media is very much dwarfed by social media amongst swing voters.
A rapid response team on twitter doesn't help if your positions are unappealing to voters getting the news on social media.
You can invest as much as you want in social media. If your positions are not appealing to the people on there you will struggle.
A post going viral because it speaks to the values of swing voters is worth more then 100 sponsored posts.
It is inherently easier to change your positions and run more appealing candidates then changing the media landsscape.
It’s going to be really fascinating to see legacy media in four years considering the demographic death spiral broadcast and even cable news viewership is in