"Not long ago, Rogan’s show was embraced by outsiders of all types. Having previously hosted Bernie Sanders for a thoughtful discussion about political corruption, Rogan soon after endorsed the socialist’s 2020 bid for the presidency. But the popularity of Rogan’s show angered the Left-leaning cultural order, which pushed to have him removed from Spotify and YouTube. Democratic politicians were warned to not appear over false claims that Rogan harbored racist views. In this light, Kamala Harris’s refusal to appear on the show in the waning weeks of the campaign was more than a mere tactical mistake. It was an implicit endorsement of the cancellation campaign waged against Rogan — a dog whistle for young men primed in the cancel culture wars."
"the popularity of Rogan’s show angered the Left-leaning cultural order, which pushed to have him removed from Spotify and YouTube"
What actually happened was people who believe in science were angry that Rogan was spreading anti-vax and COVID conspiracy nonsense (ivermectin cures covid) that was risking people's lives. But sure, let's pretend it was jealousy.
He said a few throwaway lines followed by a disclaimer that said you shouldn't make medical decisions based on what he said as he's not an expert.
Also, the risk benefit calculation of COVID vaccines is more complicated for the young and healthy (as Rogan said) than Fauci was willing to say at the time. To be fair, there was a lack of good data given the emergency and quick rollout. Also, given the complete cluster fuck that the establishment made of the lab leak debate, they don't get to complain about people being skeptical.
Finally, Rogan was the subject of attempted cancelation for reasons unrelated to COVID several times.
We have a "Joe Rogan" on the left that appeals to men. It's Chapo Trap House and podcasts like it. Liberals refuse to engage with it and denounce it because it appeals to men.
Sorry, I thought you were just expressing skepticism.
Anyway, the short answer is just being very blunt, cursing a lot, and making seemingly improvised dirty jokes at the expense of establishment politicians that seem to land well for vague thematical reasons.
The deeper factor is that it gives expression to the complete disdain many men feel both for conservatives for the policies they support and liberals for their hypocrisy and focus-group driven, cautious rhetorical style which, in their view reveals a lack of principle and/or spine. It sort of stokes the envious nostalgia that many left-leaning men feel when they read about the violent labor struggles of the early 20th Century (and late 19th).
As much as I love me my Stephen Robinson, (here's winking at you, Stephen), I have to vehemently disagree with this premise. The reich-wing media ecosystem is an exponentially bloated extension of Fox News and conservative talk radio, which went unchecked as they expanded following Clinton-era deregulation. Which occurred with the hyper-funded establishment and expansion of Reagan-era 'think' tanks, that began to reshape political narratives in the mainstream media. The New York Times and NPR in particular began to disproportionately weight their coverage to favor manufactured conservative talking points, and present their arguments with false equivalence.
But to the main point... the left doesn't have a Joe Rogan, and it wouldn't matter if we did. The Trump constituency has been years in the making, and they're so far down their rabbit hole of dis- and misinformation that I believe is past the point of no return. They own theatrical ignorance, and wouldn't accept it from the left even if it were available. Their bubble is set. It is going to take a whole new approach, and no one has really identified what that may be. We're still figuring it out. But Joe Rogan on the left is definitely not it.
The median American reads at a 6th grade level. Keep that in mind.
So if the Left/liberals/Dems want to vote the Fascist party out of power before they eff up this country even more and hurt even more people, we have to be able to persuade working class people, the majority of whom are some combo of (from my over-educated perspective) very ignorant/stupid/easily fooled as well as some combo of racist/sexist/nativist/authoritarian-loving. In fact, the data shows that the majority of Americans have some combo of those traits.
Union use to be the key way for Dems to reach and educate the working class, but unions have withered. So _something_ has to be come up with, because if the Left/liberals/Dems only appeal to those who are smart AND knowledgeable AND can see through BS AND aren't racist AND aren't sexist AND are anti-authoritarian, we'll be under authoritarian Fascist rule for a century.
They have literally said that they don’t care. It’s F-U and your feelings, regardless of facts. I don’t know how we combat that, but my argument isn’t wrong.
Every single sentence of this is wrong, it's almost perfect in its idiocy.
1. Joe Rogan and that scene have nothing to do with Right Wing Media like Alex Jones and Fox News. They come from completely different social sets and aren't connected. Calling them part of the "right wing media ecosystem" is slander.
2. Joe Rogan's constituency remains, for the moment, politically uncommitted. They came out for Trump because Rogan told them to. Rogan told them to because Kamala's people jerked him around a bit. Yes, his ego is big enough that he was willing to impact an election purely out of a small amount of spite. However, calling it "Hitler's podcast" is pure leftwing hysteria.
3. You had a liberal Joe Rogan, it was Joe Rogan. You through him out of the pack after Bernie went on his podcast because he thinks biological males shouldn't compete with women in combat sports, which a bunch of shitlibs used against Bernie. You also had a leftist Rogan, Chapo Trap House, which you all tried to cancel for... I'm actually not certain, not being corporate friendly enough? Or maybe just for not talking like in the bloodless automaton style you prefer?
4. A good 20-30% of the people who vote for Donald Trump don't really want to, they're not in any way set. It just seems like the only way to stop people like you from dictating the culture that everyone else must live under for your own comfort.
Mirror, gurl… mirror. Every single sentence of this is wrong. You can stop trolling us, and crawl back under whatever rock or bridge from which you emerged.
Unfortunately all this Monday morning quarterbacking is just a lot of garbage. Nothing was going to convince these people to support any woman for President, much less a woman of color. Certainly not three hours on Joe Rogan.
Now suddenly the NYT is bashing Trump’s cabinet choices? Too little too late.
I could go on, but why bother. They got what they wanted, now they will pay for it. Hopefully there will still be enough to “fix” come 2026 and 2028.
What Stephen said about Hillary. Also, while Obama wasn't a woman, I very much doubt any American voter was unaware that he's black. And we know he won. And Obama-Trump voters tend to still have a favorable view of Obama.
Harris won voters who received their news through traditional means (e.g. The Times), so I don't think they were the problem (though I get why people are frustrated by this).
I don't think the same Black and Latino voters who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 were somehow unaware she was a woman.
As Trump's economic plans take effect over the next year - presuming the Republican congress is dumb enough to allow them - excuse me, I'll start over here.
As Trump's economic plans take effect over the next year with the little yappy barking lapdogs in his "trifecta" congress contesting each other to see who can be the biggest lackey, watch this space to see the inflation go "brrrrrrr".
Democrats, at least during my voting lifetime, have been absolute shit at messaging. Independents claiming they care about policy? That's just a deflection so they can vote their emotions, just like everyone else. If you want to counter the propaganda of the other side -- the deliberately cynical propaganda we saw this election cycle -- you have to return that propaganda in-kind. At least long enough to get majorities that can allow us to pass truth in political advertising regulations that have actual teeth.
In my view, campaigns should be able to sue the shit out of each other and the affiliated PACs for deliberately false information, including creative editing that deliberately misrepresents an included "fact".
My aversion to a "joe rogan for the left" has nothing to do with not being able to imagine working-class Black or Latino men being on our team. Rather, it has to do with concern that using Rogan as the model will mean bringing the manosphere's misogyny and sexism along with it. And that's not paranoia, but informed by a history of centering men (particularly WM) at the expense of women (particularly BW). That concern doesn't dissipate simply because the goal would be electing Dems. Because there's still a lot of misogyny and sexism that comes from the left and Democratic politics. Add to all of that Rogan's conspiracy theories, denial of science, distortions, etc., I can see why many on the left balk at having our own "Joe Rogan."
I'm not saying there can't be or shouldn't be someone to appeal to the youngsters, but maybe we need a different way to talk about that than using Rogan, who trades in disinformation, conspiracy theories, sexism, etc., as the blueprint.
Jesus Christ, just say that you're not comfortable with having straight men in your coalition unless they're complete bloodless automatons who have so little self-respect that any accusation of sexism, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, will cause them to back down.
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?” It was such a completely contemptible way to defend doing Wall Streets bidding I think it probably sank H. Clinton's campaign.
If you want a party that has the same atmosphere as The View or Oprah, you can have it. Don't count on winning a whole lot though.
It is odd how simply saying "can we find someone who can appeal to young men without invoking a racist/misogynist to articulate that need?" has triggered so many men who can't separate political appeals that weaponize racism/sexism (Rogan and the entire rightwing) vs. finding a way/person to help reach men, who may or may not be racist/sexist themselves. Because I don't really GAF about whether some Dem voter is a racist or a sexist. What I care about is the Democratic Party not weaponizing sexism and racism to court voters (which is what republicans have done).
Do you want a non-Fascist/authoritarian government running the US or not? Because Trump/MAGA/the GOP sure as hell look to be careening that way (just look at his cabinet selections and what he will attempt to do to get them!)
If so, and you want to install a non-Fascist/authoritarian government democratically, you'd probably have to convince at least some folks who are at least racist/misogynistic to some degree to vote for Dems. I mean, you can try to believe that folks who aren't racist or misogynistic to even a small degree even latently (I hope you'd agree that like everything else, it lies on a spectrum) make up the majority of the US, but from what I see/my experience, that just isn't so. If you want to keep yourself "pure" and don't want to engage with but instead turn away any and all folks who are racist/misogynistic to any degree, you're going to see Dems and democracy lose by landslide margins to Fascist authoritarian MAGA. Is that what you want? Do you truly believe that would make for a better country or that that outcome would be better for women and minorities?
You have fundamentally misunderstood my point. Like, completely. I am saying invoking Rogan as the model is the problem. NOT that reaching out is the problem.
No, I have fundamentally misunderstood nothing. However, you have sidestepped by question. So please answer: Do you want a non-Fascist/authoritarian government running the US or not?
Assuming you do, how exactly do you propose to reach out and convince (at least somewhat/latent) misogynists/racists to vote for the non-authoritarian party without using the Rogan model? Because the non-Rogan model is clearly not winning the non-Fascists an election. Do you not agree with that reality?
I read it and I understood your point. Please explain what parts I did not understand. I bet you can't. You just don't want to admit that you'd rather have people suffer under a Orban (or Erdogan or Franco) regime than speak to Joe Rogan listeners.
I note again that you again did not answer my question. Because your argument is intellectually weak and you argue in bad faith.
I've explained it elsewhere in this thread. Look at how Brando encapsulated it. He understood me. Not sure what your hangup is. But when someone tells you you don't understand them, responding with "yes I do" as if you're in the best position to decide that is not good faith. I'm not answering your question because it is beside the point and completely idiotic as it has fuckall to do with anything I've written and if what you got out of my post was I want fascism, you're a moron.
I listen to a lot of podcasts and audiobooks because I work from my basement and sew things, lots of time to listen but no time to watch. I had assumed that podcast listeners were mostly middle aged lefty women like me, we who abandoned NPR in 2016, but clearly I was not correct.
So, say, Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards is a liberal guy, I think he might identify as an anarchist. I often disagree with his frequent gender essentialism and his takes on certain things that plenty of women could correct in a moment (breastfeeding, sewing) can irk me enough to yell out “no, dude!” if the female guests don’t correct him, but I have always assumed his audience skews younger than me. Cool Zone Media seems to be part of a small podcasting empire where a lot of the podcasters have youth appeal plus liberal attitudes, including lots of diverse guests who have podcasts of their own. I would think Evans and his guests along with the other pods in CZM would be persuasive to Guys, white guys at least. However, while being anti-racist and anti-sexist, they are far enough left to mostly beef with Dems for not being liberal enough, and I had to stop listening to several before the election because all those podcasts were too fond of telling me Harris=genocide and not voting was fine. The audience would not stand for being told to vote at all, and certainly not to vote for a centrist they saw as complicit.
I think there is an inherent issue with a lot of media that tries to appeal to young guys, though, and that is how frequently masculinity is defined as Not Anything Women Do Ever. Like, I can see why all-male spaces would be comfortable spaces for young guys but I can’t help noticing how often they involve misogyny and paternalism as bonding. And heavy gender essentialism as a balm to the pain of being able to see how unfairly the world works for women. Single gender spaces tend to become sexist, but a lot of young men won’t come to multi gender spaces because of how we define masculinity. And single gender spaces where women or trans people are belittled aren’t going to help elect Dems, I hope.
I think the algorithms are killing us. I saw a lot of leftist political ads and political content on Instagram and Facebook this election cycle, probably because of my market segment and the assumptions thereof. A LOT, both organic, from groups like Abortion Front, and from the Biden and then Harris campaigns, I rarely saw Trump stuff, probably because I skew to craft content and not homesteading things. And I think short form video makes me stupid and wrecks my attention span so I don’t use TikTok or engage with Reels, which I know are favored by the youth. But it would be impossible for me to make assumptions about what’s out there because my feeds are so specific to me. So we have to trick the algorithms and spread the Dem message, and appeal to emotion all without using misinformation. That’s a lot.
But the "Rogan blueprint" you mention there does not necessarily mean taking Rogan's toxic masculinity and aping that--a "liberal" version could be unabashedly male-focused, and appeal to young men, without that.
Rogan has creepy tendencies, but he appeals to people with humor and showmanship--if being a male chauvinist was all it took to be a huge podcasting star, any creep could do it--and he has a way of speaking to a lot of young checked-out men. That's the part I think Stephen is referring to.
Rogan has the message that they want to hear...IMO, THAT'S the problem. They are drawn to his message...Plenty of OTHER young men are drawn to better quality
The SAME information online is available to EVERYONE...WHICH information and WHICH people you are drawn to is a test of character and a majority of Americans just failed that test
I agree with this, but I also believe (and it's revealed by polls) that real people are a mess of different viewpoints. Like, there are a good number of guys who are to some degree misogynistic and simply fine with treating women like crap but also lean towards redistribution and fighting the money power and crooked corrupt crony capitalism (which we will see in spades under Trump). If the non-Fascists blare out the message MISOGYNISTS NOT WELCOME HERE and the Fascists say "hey, we won't judge you", which camp do you think they'll choose? Some of those guys would even vote for AOC just like some old white dudes casual with the N word voted for Obama. It certainly wasn't because they were keen to make sure that nobody in the Democratic party had even an ounce of latent racism in them.
I do agree with you, but I do think it's still possible to reach young men so they don't go that route. Maybe it's because I need to believe that. But I also hope I'm right.
Right, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but that that Rogan is so equated with toxic masculinity makes using him/his show as the model we should emulate is problematic. I'm talking about using his name. I am saying invoking Rogan as the model is problematic because of his misogyny. It doesn't mean it's his only schtick (that's utterly beside the point, actually). So it is easy to read "we need to go Rogan" as the Dems need to go sexist because that is what got Trump votes (because that IS what got Trump votes) and because Rogan is SO associated with that toxic masculinity brand (whether you think he has other good qualities or not).
So my only point is if we want to reach young men, and we want Dems/left/progressives to want to do that (as this article suggests is something those folks are balking at) then maybe the problem isn't that Dems don't want to reach young men, but they recoil at invoking Joe Rogan as the blueprint because his appeal includes sexism & misogyny. So just don't use his name. Say "hey, wouldn't it be great to appeal to young men by meeting them where they are and in a manner that works for their communication style." You know, like a podcast that isn't overtly about politics because we don't want to scare them. IOW, the Shade Room podcast with more listeners.
Yet, what if it _is_ what is needed to be done to end rule of Fascists in the US? You can see on this thread that some folks are keen to shrink the Democratic tent and seem to rather be willing to be ruled over by Fascists that will cause a lot of suffering than try to win over people that may hold social viewpoints that they find repugnant. IMO, they are probably either overprivileged people who won't suffer much under Fascism or they are ignorant and clueless about what life under Fascism is like.
Yeah, but I think Democrats were able to favorably compare Clinton and certainly Obama to Reagan without people assuming that "Oh, Obama is going to cut social programs and screw the poor." They were referring to his optimism and general popularity, etc.
Exactly--failing to understand why Reagan appealed to so many people and assuming it was just his negative qualities (extreme conservatism) means not getting why we lost to him while Goldwater (who was also extreme, but lacked many of Reagan's abilities) was not so successful. The same principle applies to Rogan--he has an ability to build a huge following and it's not as simple as "he's a sexist creep, men must love that, nothing more to see here folks".
I'd also, dare I say, apply it to Trump--much as I despise him he does have certain political skills worth emulating, like completely disregarding the media tsk-tskers when they come after him, and treating his addresses to his audience as a comedy routine rather than giving dry speeches. Democrats couldn't hurt themselves by learning a bit from his playbook.
I'll also say that because President Klan Robe makes media arms money with his antics they are perfectly fine with normalizing/sanewashing/uncritically carrying his propaganda.
One example is how "old" disappeared once Joe Biden was successfully shoved onto the ice floe.
Now I think we could learn from his playbook and run an entirely amoral asshole and it'll prove this. Put Andrew Cuomo up because he doesn't give a shit about anyone, and probably could run him with Newsom. Just no more Black women getting shoved off a glass cliff.
I'm old enough to remember the shit Hillary Clinton got for "deplorables" and Obama for "guns and God," yet again Murc's Law dictates that there is no consequence for Republicans to call entire states and territories garbage, filth. You don't see Democrats shitting on Republican-run cities ravaged by meth and fentanyl. There isn't a Democratic politician that uses West Virginia as a punchline; just random people online.
The question being asked here, about getting a Joe Rogan, and extending the tent to people with bad social views and such is just another trap. What will happen in the end is at the next Democratic loss that'll be offered up as an ex post facto "Oh, see you lost because you reached out to racists and sexists who watch Joe Rogan." Just like "Oh see Kamala Harris lost because Liz Cheney supported her (for the most important issue, Democracy)."
Clearly what we need though is someone who can champion our values but do so in a way that can appeal well beyond our base. A lot of it is "showing up" (how many low info voters even hear what we have to say directly from us?), a lot is "talking their language" (sorry folks, they aren't reading white papers or listening to our long explanations about what "Defund the Police" really means), but it is that and more.
I'm not failing to understand his appeal to the right. And I also didn't say sexism was his only appeal. I am referencing his reputation with the left. The point of the article above is that the left has rejected the idea of a "Rogan for the left" because they don't think Dems can appeal to young men. My point is that the rejection of a "Rogan for the left" isn't about rejecting reaching out to young men, but rejecting Rogan out of fear that what that signals is a willingness to embrace ALL of Rogan including the misogyny.
No, but having Cheney campaign with Harris supposedly alienated voters. I don't honestly know why it's important to use his name. Or why that's more important than considering that women like me might have concerns about what exactly it means. Since you then have to go on to explain what it means, why not just start with that explanation instead of invoking a complete asshole?
Reagan was also an asshole, but by the time he was invoked during Obama's campaign, his legacy had been whitewashed so he was St. Ronnie and unrecognizable as the guy who was president.
I'm saying just consider that aversion to a Joe Rogan from the left has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or desire to reach working class men. Because they way he did that included misogyny. And if that is the only way to reach those men, then I don't want to be part of a party that does that for political expediency.
From my perspective, I see it as modeling positive working class male liberalism rather than ceding an entire demographic to Trumpism. That’s not just defeatist. It’s electorally catastrophic. I don’t think liberalism *only* exists as college educated people who like wine and theatre (you know, people like me!). I’m a *minority* among the Black men who have voted in large numbers for Democrats in the past. I want a “Joe Rogan from the Left’ that creates that barbershop vibe that I recall from my youth -- working class men shooting the shit but they didn’t like Ronald Reagan and voted for Dukakis.
My only point is that Rogan's name is tainted given his sexism & misogyny. And left/Dem men have thrown women under the bus before. So using his name--the messaging--in trying to push this, especially after the tirades on social media about how Harris was talking about abortion "too much," not centering men, James Carville saying the party was all "preachy females." etc. risks alienating women.
So instead of saying we need a Joe Rogan, how about we need better outreach to working class white men. Or use the barbershop model. Someone like Kevin Hart (though he has too many jobs already). But when I hear we need a Joe Rogan, as a woman, I hear "we need to center men and embrace the manosphere."
Kevin Hart wasn’t canceled. He is doing just fine financially, which is the true sign of cancellation. The only people I can think of who were canceled were Kathy Griffin and Michelle Wolf. And men should not talk about the female experience like you have understanding. You do not understand the perspective.
Remember the bear situation. Women would rather lose then dance with the devil. Unlike republicans.
It is. If you truly are anti-Fascist and want to keep Fascists from ruling and harming people, I don't believe cancelling people and shrinking the tent leads to more electoral victories by anti-Fascists and furthers any progressive agenda.
Harris lost ground with women compared to Biden (and not just white women). I mean this is an across-the-board problem.
And there is clear data -- from women voters polled after the election -- that the economy and crime mattered more than abortion. I wish it wasn't the case but we also have to listen to the voters. It seems like we didn't.
Considering that crime is actually down and Harris had actual plans for price gouging, this was definitely a fig leaf for culture war. And also misinformation. I remember one guy parroting to me the "The police won't arrest you if you steal less than $1000 from a store."
But we should also lie. By that I mean, blame Trump for everything. Even if he's not directly responsible. Ignore nuance and blame Trump and the GOP. Repeatedly over and over again. Gas prices spike? Trump's fault. Grocery prices up? Trump's fault. People don't care about nuance. They don't care about facts. They don't care about rational arguments. No. If shit isn't perfect, you get out there and blame Trump regardless of whether he could do something about it or not. Just a constant stream of negative shit associated with him and the GOP brand. And not negative like "look at these poor immigrants he's hurting" or "look at this crying family who just lost someone to police violence", that moves us, but it doesn't move fucking America. No... stock market down? Trump fucked it up. They don't have a Coors Light t-shirt in your size? Fucking Trump, man. Bank teller was rude? Phppt. Folks just aren't friendly like they used to be, it's Trump's fault. Grandma got scammed by an asshole? Why the fuck didn't Trump stop this?
Hatred works too. Focus on that for a bit. Every legislation that passes that benefits rich people and corporations, get out there and start screaming about Republican sellouts to Big Pharma or Big Ag or Elon Musk and ask how long they've been taking bribes. Ask how much it cost to sell out American workers or real Americans who work for a living.
No positive news. Just constant firehose of negativity and hate. And don't apologize. NEVER apologize. Double down. Mock people who complain and ask if they need a "safe" space. Ask the rich pampered little boys if they need their mommy. Fuck, challenge them to a fucking duel.
We tried reason, hope, joy, empathy, and decency. Didn't work. Americans told us to go fuck ourselves. So let's play the game too.
Look, I'm college-educated so I get it, but would you truly rather hold yourself clean, not fight dirty, and have malignant authoritarians who will hurt people have the power to hurt people, or the reverse?
And yes, sadly, hatred and lying seems to be a winning combination.
I mean, I don't want to either and would rather not, but I also have a clear-eyed view of current reality in the US, and from the data I've seen, hatred and lying are effective for winning votes.
Remember that the median American reads at a 6th grade level.
I mean... they literally control all three branches of government and a majority of state governments... so... yes. Lying, negativity, and hatred work.
You want to meet people where they're at? That's it.
Just guide their hatred to the right targets: the privileged, instead of the wrong targets: the vulnerable.
This line killed me: “Despite all the stupid and offensive comments, young men also found Trump likable.” No, they found him likable because he’s stupid and offensive.
I don’t know where we go from here, though I like several of the suggestions.
Honestly, nothing keeps Dems from being stupid and offensive too in order to gain votes other than the tsk-tsking of pearl-clutching over-educated liberals (speaking as an over-educated liberal myself though thankfully not a pearl-clutching one). Too many liberals seem to prefer malignant authoritarians who will hurt many people gaining the power to do so long as the liberals can tell themselves that they are better people vs. the opposite.
Hmmmm, do you really know that or heard of that many liberals who actually wanted Trump in office just so they could feel morally superior when shit goes south?
I see plenty of liberals (even on this thread!) who seem willing to let Fascists gain power to hurt vulnerable people rather than try to gain votes from folks who are even partially/unconsciously sexist/racist/authoritarian-loving even though those folks are the majority of the country.
I've said it elsewhere on this thread, but if the Left/liberals/Dems only seek the votes of people who are not racist AND not sexist AND anti-authoritarian AND smart AND knowledgeable AND can see through BS, we'll lose by landslides every election and will be under Fascist authoritarian rule for a century because folks who are all those are very much a minority in this country and every other country in the world.
So you feel Harris/Walz didn’t do that? It seems to me that they went to states/cities where they were trying to reach people like you describe. I don’t believe that people here want to go out of their way to intentionally hurt those who hurt themselves by voting in Trump, but there won’t necessarily be a lot of sympathy either. You get what you paid for. We’ll all be hurting to some degree.
So, to be clear, Harris was fighting an uphill battle with post-pandemic inflation sinking incumbent parties of all types across the world. And Biden being selfish and not dropping out earlier to allow a full primary race to develop really hurt the Dems.
But one big issue is that Dems, being chock full of educated people now, don't really promote pols from working class/lower-middle class backgrounds these days unless they are absolute superstars like Bill or Obama or if they were selected as VP like Biden and got that advantage. I noted elsewhere on this thread that since Carter, every single Dem loser was high-SES (Mondale's dad was a pastor so still a Somebody in their local neighborhood but Kamala's dad is a Prof, Gore's dad was a Senator, Dukakis's dad was a doctor, and all the other Dem losers were also upper-middle class or higher. Of the winners, Obama was "merely" middle class (who attended a private HS on scholarship), Biden dropped in to the working class, and Bill was WWC raised by a single mom.
Just hearing Kamala's statements, she didn't talk like anyone a blue collar person would hear in their daily life.
Rogan and the Right traditionally find their success in hate, in rallying around an "enemy", the MAGA movement and its 'content creators' followed to a T Umberto Eco's warning signs of fascism (written in 1985). Are these things Harris or any responsible leadership should have done?
"...The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”..."
haven't really followed Rogan since fear factor. i see he's bald now, evidently.
“ but only 5 percent of young adult Americans actually identify as trans.”
Uh, you number is just wrong. The link says “only” 1.4% of 13-17, and only 1.3% of 18-24 self-identify as trans.
Which still shows how bad the woke ideologizing is that the numbers have shot up so much. But ain’t no one anywhere said it’s anything close to 5%.
"Not long ago, Rogan’s show was embraced by outsiders of all types. Having previously hosted Bernie Sanders for a thoughtful discussion about political corruption, Rogan soon after endorsed the socialist’s 2020 bid for the presidency. But the popularity of Rogan’s show angered the Left-leaning cultural order, which pushed to have him removed from Spotify and YouTube. Democratic politicians were warned to not appear over false claims that Rogan harbored racist views. In this light, Kamala Harris’s refusal to appear on the show in the waning weeks of the campaign was more than a mere tactical mistake. It was an implicit endorsement of the cancellation campaign waged against Rogan — a dog whistle for young men primed in the cancel culture wars."
https://www.leefang.com/p/why-metoo-generation-young-men-swung
"the popularity of Rogan’s show angered the Left-leaning cultural order, which pushed to have him removed from Spotify and YouTube"
What actually happened was people who believe in science were angry that Rogan was spreading anti-vax and COVID conspiracy nonsense (ivermectin cures covid) that was risking people's lives. But sure, let's pretend it was jealousy.
He said a few throwaway lines followed by a disclaimer that said you shouldn't make medical decisions based on what he said as he's not an expert.
Also, the risk benefit calculation of COVID vaccines is more complicated for the young and healthy (as Rogan said) than Fauci was willing to say at the time. To be fair, there was a lack of good data given the emergency and quick rollout. Also, given the complete cluster fuck that the establishment made of the lab leak debate, they don't get to complain about people being skeptical.
Finally, Rogan was the subject of attempted cancelation for reasons unrelated to COVID several times.
You mean, ‘cancel-cultured’ because he’s a misogynistic POS who more than once has given his audience very-incorrect information?
Keep fucking that chicken!
Hey I know, go fuck yourself.
We have a "Joe Rogan" on the left that appeals to men. It's Chapo Trap House and podcasts like it. Liberals refuse to engage with it and denounce it because it appeals to men.
In what ways does it “appeal to men”? What does that mean?
In the way that the large majority of its listeners are men, how's that not clear?
That doesn’t address my question.
Are you asking how and why it appeals to men?
Yes, that was my question.
Sorry, I thought you were just expressing skepticism.
Anyway, the short answer is just being very blunt, cursing a lot, and making seemingly improvised dirty jokes at the expense of establishment politicians that seem to land well for vague thematical reasons.
The deeper factor is that it gives expression to the complete disdain many men feel both for conservatives for the policies they support and liberals for their hypocrisy and focus-group driven, cautious rhetorical style which, in their view reveals a lack of principle and/or spine. It sort of stokes the envious nostalgia that many left-leaning men feel when they read about the violent labor struggles of the early 20th Century (and late 19th).
As much as I love me my Stephen Robinson, (here's winking at you, Stephen), I have to vehemently disagree with this premise. The reich-wing media ecosystem is an exponentially bloated extension of Fox News and conservative talk radio, which went unchecked as they expanded following Clinton-era deregulation. Which occurred with the hyper-funded establishment and expansion of Reagan-era 'think' tanks, that began to reshape political narratives in the mainstream media. The New York Times and NPR in particular began to disproportionately weight their coverage to favor manufactured conservative talking points, and present their arguments with false equivalence.
But to the main point... the left doesn't have a Joe Rogan, and it wouldn't matter if we did. The Trump constituency has been years in the making, and they're so far down their rabbit hole of dis- and misinformation that I believe is past the point of no return. They own theatrical ignorance, and wouldn't accept it from the left even if it were available. Their bubble is set. It is going to take a whole new approach, and no one has really identified what that may be. We're still figuring it out. But Joe Rogan on the left is definitely not it.
The median American reads at a 6th grade level. Keep that in mind.
So if the Left/liberals/Dems want to vote the Fascist party out of power before they eff up this country even more and hurt even more people, we have to be able to persuade working class people, the majority of whom are some combo of (from my over-educated perspective) very ignorant/stupid/easily fooled as well as some combo of racist/sexist/nativist/authoritarian-loving. In fact, the data shows that the majority of Americans have some combo of those traits.
Union use to be the key way for Dems to reach and educate the working class, but unions have withered. So _something_ has to be come up with, because if the Left/liberals/Dems only appeal to those who are smart AND knowledgeable AND can see through BS AND aren't racist AND aren't sexist AND are anti-authoritarian, we'll be under authoritarian Fascist rule for a century.
They have literally said that they don’t care. It’s F-U and your feelings, regardless of facts. I don’t know how we combat that, but my argument isn’t wrong.
Every single sentence of this is wrong, it's almost perfect in its idiocy.
1. Joe Rogan and that scene have nothing to do with Right Wing Media like Alex Jones and Fox News. They come from completely different social sets and aren't connected. Calling them part of the "right wing media ecosystem" is slander.
2. Joe Rogan's constituency remains, for the moment, politically uncommitted. They came out for Trump because Rogan told them to. Rogan told them to because Kamala's people jerked him around a bit. Yes, his ego is big enough that he was willing to impact an election purely out of a small amount of spite. However, calling it "Hitler's podcast" is pure leftwing hysteria.
3. You had a liberal Joe Rogan, it was Joe Rogan. You through him out of the pack after Bernie went on his podcast because he thinks biological males shouldn't compete with women in combat sports, which a bunch of shitlibs used against Bernie. You also had a leftist Rogan, Chapo Trap House, which you all tried to cancel for... I'm actually not certain, not being corporate friendly enough? Or maybe just for not talking like in the bloodless automaton style you prefer?
4. A good 20-30% of the people who vote for Donald Trump don't really want to, they're not in any way set. It just seems like the only way to stop people like you from dictating the culture that everyone else must live under for your own comfort.
Mirror, gurl… mirror. Every single sentence of this is wrong. You can stop trolling us, and crawl back under whatever rock or bridge from which you emerged.
Yeah, well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.
Unfortunately all this Monday morning quarterbacking is just a lot of garbage. Nothing was going to convince these people to support any woman for President, much less a woman of color. Certainly not three hours on Joe Rogan.
Now suddenly the NYT is bashing Trump’s cabinet choices? Too little too late.
I could go on, but why bother. They got what they wanted, now they will pay for it. Hopefully there will still be enough to “fix” come 2026 and 2028.
What Stephen said about Hillary. Also, while Obama wasn't a woman, I very much doubt any American voter was unaware that he's black. And we know he won. And Obama-Trump voters tend to still have a favorable view of Obama.
Harris won voters who received their news through traditional means (e.g. The Times), so I don't think they were the problem (though I get why people are frustrated by this).
I don't think the same Black and Latino voters who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 were somehow unaware she was a woman.
As Trump's economic plans take effect over the next year - presuming the Republican congress is dumb enough to allow them - excuse me, I'll start over here.
As Trump's economic plans take effect over the next year with the little yappy barking lapdogs in his "trifecta" congress contesting each other to see who can be the biggest lackey, watch this space to see the inflation go "brrrrrrr".
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/
See that spike in 2022? That's a big reason why Harris lost.
"I'm not crying, the Onion is making my eyes water"
- Alex Jones
This may provide a chuckle and help us ease our pain. Kind of a simultaneously laughing&crying thing.
We are the good guys, y’all. Don’t ever forget that. And we’re smart and open enough to figure out how to do better, always.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/updates-on-the-arc-of-the-moral-universe
Joe Rogan endorsed RFK Jr and within 1 day of MAGA bullying, he pulled his endorsement.
We do not need a propogandist
Actually, we do. If you want to keep losing elections to Fascists and have Fascists run the country, keep on believing that
I agree. This article from WaPo actually illustrates why it's necessary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/15/republican-ads-false-flag/
Democrats, at least during my voting lifetime, have been absolute shit at messaging. Independents claiming they care about policy? That's just a deflection so they can vote their emotions, just like everyone else. If you want to counter the propaganda of the other side -- the deliberately cynical propaganda we saw this election cycle -- you have to return that propaganda in-kind. At least long enough to get majorities that can allow us to pass truth in political advertising regulations that have actual teeth.
In my view, campaigns should be able to sue the shit out of each other and the affiliated PACs for deliberately false information, including creative editing that deliberately misrepresents an included "fact".
My aversion to a "joe rogan for the left" has nothing to do with not being able to imagine working-class Black or Latino men being on our team. Rather, it has to do with concern that using Rogan as the model will mean bringing the manosphere's misogyny and sexism along with it. And that's not paranoia, but informed by a history of centering men (particularly WM) at the expense of women (particularly BW). That concern doesn't dissipate simply because the goal would be electing Dems. Because there's still a lot of misogyny and sexism that comes from the left and Democratic politics. Add to all of that Rogan's conspiracy theories, denial of science, distortions, etc., I can see why many on the left balk at having our own "Joe Rogan."
I'm not saying there can't be or shouldn't be someone to appeal to the youngsters, but maybe we need a different way to talk about that than using Rogan, who trades in disinformation, conspiracy theories, sexism, etc., as the blueprint.
Jesus Christ, just say that you're not comfortable with having straight men in your coalition unless they're complete bloodless automatons who have so little self-respect that any accusation of sexism, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, will cause them to back down.
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?” It was such a completely contemptible way to defend doing Wall Streets bidding I think it probably sank H. Clinton's campaign.
If you want a party that has the same atmosphere as The View or Oprah, you can have it. Don't count on winning a whole lot though.
You seem a little sensitive.
It is odd how simply saying "can we find someone who can appeal to young men without invoking a racist/misogynist to articulate that need?" has triggered so many men who can't separate political appeals that weaponize racism/sexism (Rogan and the entire rightwing) vs. finding a way/person to help reach men, who may or may not be racist/sexist themselves. Because I don't really GAF about whether some Dem voter is a racist or a sexist. What I care about is the Democratic Party not weaponizing sexism and racism to court voters (which is what republicans have done).
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Ooh! I know you are, but what am I! Killer reply.
Let's start with first principles:
Do you want a non-Fascist/authoritarian government running the US or not? Because Trump/MAGA/the GOP sure as hell look to be careening that way (just look at his cabinet selections and what he will attempt to do to get them!)
If so, and you want to install a non-Fascist/authoritarian government democratically, you'd probably have to convince at least some folks who are at least racist/misogynistic to some degree to vote for Dems. I mean, you can try to believe that folks who aren't racist or misogynistic to even a small degree even latently (I hope you'd agree that like everything else, it lies on a spectrum) make up the majority of the US, but from what I see/my experience, that just isn't so. If you want to keep yourself "pure" and don't want to engage with but instead turn away any and all folks who are racist/misogynistic to any degree, you're going to see Dems and democracy lose by landslide margins to Fascist authoritarian MAGA. Is that what you want? Do you truly believe that would make for a better country or that that outcome would be better for women and minorities?
You have fundamentally misunderstood my point. Like, completely. I am saying invoking Rogan as the model is the problem. NOT that reaching out is the problem.
No, I have fundamentally misunderstood nothing. However, you have sidestepped by question. So please answer: Do you want a non-Fascist/authoritarian government running the US or not?
Assuming you do, how exactly do you propose to reach out and convince (at least somewhat/latent) misogynists/racists to vote for the non-authoritarian party without using the Rogan model? Because the non-Rogan model is clearly not winning the non-Fascists an election. Do you not agree with that reality?
What’s the “non-Rogan model”?
Reread my post as many times as you need to understand my point. Because right now, woosh, it's going right past you.
I read it and I understood your point. Please explain what parts I did not understand. I bet you can't. You just don't want to admit that you'd rather have people suffer under a Orban (or Erdogan or Franco) regime than speak to Joe Rogan listeners.
I note again that you again did not answer my question. Because your argument is intellectually weak and you argue in bad faith.
Wow.
I've explained it elsewhere in this thread. Look at how Brando encapsulated it. He understood me. Not sure what your hangup is. But when someone tells you you don't understand them, responding with "yes I do" as if you're in the best position to decide that is not good faith. I'm not answering your question because it is beside the point and completely idiotic as it has fuckall to do with anything I've written and if what you got out of my post was I want fascism, you're a moron.
Couldn't a "Joe Rogan of the Left" be someone with appeal to young men who is not pushing misogyny?
That's the point of my second paragraph.
I listen to a lot of podcasts and audiobooks because I work from my basement and sew things, lots of time to listen but no time to watch. I had assumed that podcast listeners were mostly middle aged lefty women like me, we who abandoned NPR in 2016, but clearly I was not correct.
So, say, Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards is a liberal guy, I think he might identify as an anarchist. I often disagree with his frequent gender essentialism and his takes on certain things that plenty of women could correct in a moment (breastfeeding, sewing) can irk me enough to yell out “no, dude!” if the female guests don’t correct him, but I have always assumed his audience skews younger than me. Cool Zone Media seems to be part of a small podcasting empire where a lot of the podcasters have youth appeal plus liberal attitudes, including lots of diverse guests who have podcasts of their own. I would think Evans and his guests along with the other pods in CZM would be persuasive to Guys, white guys at least. However, while being anti-racist and anti-sexist, they are far enough left to mostly beef with Dems for not being liberal enough, and I had to stop listening to several before the election because all those podcasts were too fond of telling me Harris=genocide and not voting was fine. The audience would not stand for being told to vote at all, and certainly not to vote for a centrist they saw as complicit.
I think there is an inherent issue with a lot of media that tries to appeal to young guys, though, and that is how frequently masculinity is defined as Not Anything Women Do Ever. Like, I can see why all-male spaces would be comfortable spaces for young guys but I can’t help noticing how often they involve misogyny and paternalism as bonding. And heavy gender essentialism as a balm to the pain of being able to see how unfairly the world works for women. Single gender spaces tend to become sexist, but a lot of young men won’t come to multi gender spaces because of how we define masculinity. And single gender spaces where women or trans people are belittled aren’t going to help elect Dems, I hope.
I think the algorithms are killing us. I saw a lot of leftist political ads and political content on Instagram and Facebook this election cycle, probably because of my market segment and the assumptions thereof. A LOT, both organic, from groups like Abortion Front, and from the Biden and then Harris campaigns, I rarely saw Trump stuff, probably because I skew to craft content and not homesteading things. And I think short form video makes me stupid and wrecks my attention span so I don’t use TikTok or engage with Reels, which I know are favored by the youth. But it would be impossible for me to make assumptions about what’s out there because my feeds are so specific to me. So we have to trick the algorithms and spread the Dem message, and appeal to emotion all without using misinformation. That’s a lot.
But the "Rogan blueprint" you mention there does not necessarily mean taking Rogan's toxic masculinity and aping that--a "liberal" version could be unabashedly male-focused, and appeal to young men, without that.
Rogan has creepy tendencies, but he appeals to people with humor and showmanship--if being a male chauvinist was all it took to be a huge podcasting star, any creep could do it--and he has a way of speaking to a lot of young checked-out men. That's the part I think Stephen is referring to.
Rogan has the message that they want to hear...IMO, THAT'S the problem. They are drawn to his message...Plenty of OTHER young men are drawn to better quality
The SAME information online is available to EVERYONE...WHICH information and WHICH people you are drawn to is a test of character and a majority of Americans just failed that test
I agree with this, but I also believe (and it's revealed by polls) that real people are a mess of different viewpoints. Like, there are a good number of guys who are to some degree misogynistic and simply fine with treating women like crap but also lean towards redistribution and fighting the money power and crooked corrupt crony capitalism (which we will see in spades under Trump). If the non-Fascists blare out the message MISOGYNISTS NOT WELCOME HERE and the Fascists say "hey, we won't judge you", which camp do you think they'll choose? Some of those guys would even vote for AOC just like some old white dudes casual with the N word voted for Obama. It certainly wasn't because they were keen to make sure that nobody in the Democratic party had even an ounce of latent racism in them.
Oh, so we need a Nick Fuentes for the left.
Wow.
I do agree with you, but I do think it's still possible to reach young men so they don't go that route. Maybe it's because I need to believe that. But I also hope I'm right.
Hopium is not engaging with reality.
Right, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but that that Rogan is so equated with toxic masculinity makes using him/his show as the model we should emulate is problematic. I'm talking about using his name. I am saying invoking Rogan as the model is problematic because of his misogyny. It doesn't mean it's his only schtick (that's utterly beside the point, actually). So it is easy to read "we need to go Rogan" as the Dems need to go sexist because that is what got Trump votes (because that IS what got Trump votes) and because Rogan is SO associated with that toxic masculinity brand (whether you think he has other good qualities or not).
So my only point is if we want to reach young men, and we want Dems/left/progressives to want to do that (as this article suggests is something those folks are balking at) then maybe the problem isn't that Dems don't want to reach young men, but they recoil at invoking Joe Rogan as the blueprint because his appeal includes sexism & misogyny. So just don't use his name. Say "hey, wouldn't it be great to appeal to young men by meeting them where they are and in a manner that works for their communication style." You know, like a podcast that isn't overtly about politics because we don't want to scare them. IOW, the Shade Room podcast with more listeners.
I agree--maybe "go Rogan" isn't the best way to describe what we need to do.
Yet, what if it _is_ what is needed to be done to end rule of Fascists in the US? You can see on this thread that some folks are keen to shrink the Democratic tent and seem to rather be willing to be ruled over by Fascists that will cause a lot of suffering than try to win over people that may hold social viewpoints that they find repugnant. IMO, they are probably either overprivileged people who won't suffer much under Fascism or they are ignorant and clueless about what life under Fascism is like.
EXACTLY!
Yeah, but I think Democrats were able to favorably compare Clinton and certainly Obama to Reagan without people assuming that "Oh, Obama is going to cut social programs and screw the poor." They were referring to his optimism and general popularity, etc.
Exactly--failing to understand why Reagan appealed to so many people and assuming it was just his negative qualities (extreme conservatism) means not getting why we lost to him while Goldwater (who was also extreme, but lacked many of Reagan's abilities) was not so successful. The same principle applies to Rogan--he has an ability to build a huge following and it's not as simple as "he's a sexist creep, men must love that, nothing more to see here folks".
I'd also, dare I say, apply it to Trump--much as I despise him he does have certain political skills worth emulating, like completely disregarding the media tsk-tskers when they come after him, and treating his addresses to his audience as a comedy routine rather than giving dry speeches. Democrats couldn't hurt themselves by learning a bit from his playbook.
I'll also say that because President Klan Robe makes media arms money with his antics they are perfectly fine with normalizing/sanewashing/uncritically carrying his propaganda.
One example is how "old" disappeared once Joe Biden was successfully shoved onto the ice floe.
Now I think we could learn from his playbook and run an entirely amoral asshole and it'll prove this. Put Andrew Cuomo up because he doesn't give a shit about anyone, and probably could run him with Newsom. Just no more Black women getting shoved off a glass cliff.
I'm old enough to remember the shit Hillary Clinton got for "deplorables" and Obama for "guns and God," yet again Murc's Law dictates that there is no consequence for Republicans to call entire states and territories garbage, filth. You don't see Democrats shitting on Republican-run cities ravaged by meth and fentanyl. There isn't a Democratic politician that uses West Virginia as a punchline; just random people online.
The question being asked here, about getting a Joe Rogan, and extending the tent to people with bad social views and such is just another trap. What will happen in the end is at the next Democratic loss that'll be offered up as an ex post facto "Oh, see you lost because you reached out to racists and sexists who watch Joe Rogan." Just like "Oh see Kamala Harris lost because Liz Cheney supported her (for the most important issue, Democracy)."
Clearly what we need though is someone who can champion our values but do so in a way that can appeal well beyond our base. A lot of it is "showing up" (how many low info voters even hear what we have to say directly from us?), a lot is "talking their language" (sorry folks, they aren't reading white papers or listening to our long explanations about what "Defund the Police" really means), but it is that and more.
I'm not failing to understand his appeal to the right. And I also didn't say sexism was his only appeal. I am referencing his reputation with the left. The point of the article above is that the left has rejected the idea of a "Rogan for the left" because they don't think Dems can appeal to young men. My point is that the rejection of a "Rogan for the left" isn't about rejecting reaching out to young men, but rejecting Rogan out of fear that what that signals is a willingness to embrace ALL of Rogan including the misogyny.
So you'd rather be ruled by Fascists rather than that maybe some guys with some misogynistic views vote for the non-Fascists. Got it.
No, but having Cheney campaign with Harris supposedly alienated voters. I don't honestly know why it's important to use his name. Or why that's more important than considering that women like me might have concerns about what exactly it means. Since you then have to go on to explain what it means, why not just start with that explanation instead of invoking a complete asshole?
Reagan was also an asshole, but by the time he was invoked during Obama's campaign, his legacy had been whitewashed so he was St. Ronnie and unrecognizable as the guy who was president.
I'm saying just consider that aversion to a Joe Rogan from the left has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or desire to reach working class men. Because they way he did that included misogyny. And if that is the only way to reach those men, then I don't want to be part of a party that does that for political expediency.
Basically, you're saying you'd rather be under Fascist rule than have some guys who may have some misogynistic views vote Dem.
Do you truly think that MAGA/Trump/Orban ruling will advance whatever progressive agenda you favor?
Your reductionism is tiresome.
From my perspective, I see it as modeling positive working class male liberalism rather than ceding an entire demographic to Trumpism. That’s not just defeatist. It’s electorally catastrophic. I don’t think liberalism *only* exists as college educated people who like wine and theatre (you know, people like me!). I’m a *minority* among the Black men who have voted in large numbers for Democrats in the past. I want a “Joe Rogan from the Left’ that creates that barbershop vibe that I recall from my youth -- working class men shooting the shit but they didn’t like Ronald Reagan and voted for Dukakis.
My only point is that Rogan's name is tainted given his sexism & misogyny. And left/Dem men have thrown women under the bus before. So using his name--the messaging--in trying to push this, especially after the tirades on social media about how Harris was talking about abortion "too much," not centering men, James Carville saying the party was all "preachy females." etc. risks alienating women.
So instead of saying we need a Joe Rogan, how about we need better outreach to working class white men. Or use the barbershop model. Someone like Kevin Hart (though he has too many jobs already). But when I hear we need a Joe Rogan, as a woman, I hear "we need to center men and embrace the manosphere."
Liberals have canceled Kevin Hart for similar reasons (it’s perhaps a larger issue)
Kevin Hart wasn’t canceled. He is doing just fine financially, which is the true sign of cancellation. The only people I can think of who were canceled were Kathy Griffin and Michelle Wolf. And men should not talk about the female experience like you have understanding. You do not understand the perspective.
Remember the bear situation. Women would rather lose then dance with the devil. Unlike republicans.
It is. If you truly are anti-Fascist and want to keep Fascists from ruling and harming people, I don't believe cancelling people and shrinking the tent leads to more electoral victories by anti-Fascists and furthers any progressive agenda.
Darn. I hadn't heard that about him. Frick. I really enjoy his movies. Boo.
Harris lost ground with women compared to Biden (and not just white women). I mean this is an across-the-board problem.
And there is clear data -- from women voters polled after the election -- that the economy and crime mattered more than abortion. I wish it wasn't the case but we also have to listen to the voters. It seems like we didn't.
Considering that crime is actually down and Harris had actual plans for price gouging, this was definitely a fig leaf for culture war. And also misinformation. I remember one guy parroting to me the "The police won't arrest you if you steal less than $1000 from a store."
We are contesting voter fantasy against reality.
That women can be misogynistic isn't news and doesn't change my reaction to Rogan as a model. Sorry, it just doesn't.
It's a good start.
But we should also lie. By that I mean, blame Trump for everything. Even if he's not directly responsible. Ignore nuance and blame Trump and the GOP. Repeatedly over and over again. Gas prices spike? Trump's fault. Grocery prices up? Trump's fault. People don't care about nuance. They don't care about facts. They don't care about rational arguments. No. If shit isn't perfect, you get out there and blame Trump regardless of whether he could do something about it or not. Just a constant stream of negative shit associated with him and the GOP brand. And not negative like "look at these poor immigrants he's hurting" or "look at this crying family who just lost someone to police violence", that moves us, but it doesn't move fucking America. No... stock market down? Trump fucked it up. They don't have a Coors Light t-shirt in your size? Fucking Trump, man. Bank teller was rude? Phppt. Folks just aren't friendly like they used to be, it's Trump's fault. Grandma got scammed by an asshole? Why the fuck didn't Trump stop this?
Hatred works too. Focus on that for a bit. Every legislation that passes that benefits rich people and corporations, get out there and start screaming about Republican sellouts to Big Pharma or Big Ag or Elon Musk and ask how long they've been taking bribes. Ask how much it cost to sell out American workers or real Americans who work for a living.
No positive news. Just constant firehose of negativity and hate. And don't apologize. NEVER apologize. Double down. Mock people who complain and ask if they need a "safe" space. Ask the rich pampered little boys if they need their mommy. Fuck, challenge them to a fucking duel.
We tried reason, hope, joy, empathy, and decency. Didn't work. Americans told us to go fuck ourselves. So let's play the game too.
So — “become like them”? Because hatred and lying is such a winning combination?
Look, I'm college-educated so I get it, but would you truly rather hold yourself clean, not fight dirty, and have malignant authoritarians who will hurt people have the power to hurt people, or the reverse?
And yes, sadly, hatred and lying seems to be a winning combination.
I don’t accept your binary argument.
I mean, I don't want to either and would rather not, but I also have a clear-eyed view of current reality in the US, and from the data I've seen, hatred and lying are effective for winning votes.
Remember that the median American reads at a 6th grade level.
Yes, I know.
I reject your premise that hatred and lying are the ways to win votes, and that to do so is how we fight Fascism.
I personally don't believe rejecting reality is conducive to winning elections.
You know what does? Acting like AOC here:
https://nitter.poast.org/TeamAOC/status/1853868403682922902#m
I mean... they literally control all three branches of government and a majority of state governments... so... yes. Lying, negativity, and hatred work.
You want to meet people where they're at? That's it.
Just guide their hatred to the right targets: the privileged, instead of the wrong targets: the vulnerable.
Well, there’s the rub.
Harris met every challenge in her campaign thrown her way by the media and still lost... don't think a Rogan appearance would have helped any.
This line killed me: “Despite all the stupid and offensive comments, young men also found Trump likable.” No, they found him likable because he’s stupid and offensive.
I don’t know where we go from here, though I like several of the suggestions.
Honestly, nothing keeps Dems from being stupid and offensive too in order to gain votes other than the tsk-tsking of pearl-clutching over-educated liberals (speaking as an over-educated liberal myself though thankfully not a pearl-clutching one). Too many liberals seem to prefer malignant authoritarians who will hurt many people gaining the power to do so long as the liberals can tell themselves that they are better people vs. the opposite.
Hmmmm, do you really know that or heard of that many liberals who actually wanted Trump in office just so they could feel morally superior when shit goes south?
Yes, it's the only thing that makes a lot of their behavior explicable.
I see plenty of liberals (even on this thread!) who seem willing to let Fascists gain power to hurt vulnerable people rather than try to gain votes from folks who are even partially/unconsciously sexist/racist/authoritarian-loving even though those folks are the majority of the country.
I've said it elsewhere on this thread, but if the Left/liberals/Dems only seek the votes of people who are not racist AND not sexist AND anti-authoritarian AND smart AND knowledgeable AND can see through BS, we'll lose by landslides every election and will be under Fascist authoritarian rule for a century because folks who are all those are very much a minority in this country and every other country in the world.
So you feel Harris/Walz didn’t do that? It seems to me that they went to states/cities where they were trying to reach people like you describe. I don’t believe that people here want to go out of their way to intentionally hurt those who hurt themselves by voting in Trump, but there won’t necessarily be a lot of sympathy either. You get what you paid for. We’ll all be hurting to some degree.
They need to sound like AOC here:
https://nitter.poast.org/TeamAOC/status/1853868403682922902#m
So, to be clear, Harris was fighting an uphill battle with post-pandemic inflation sinking incumbent parties of all types across the world. And Biden being selfish and not dropping out earlier to allow a full primary race to develop really hurt the Dems.
But one big issue is that Dems, being chock full of educated people now, don't really promote pols from working class/lower-middle class backgrounds these days unless they are absolute superstars like Bill or Obama or if they were selected as VP like Biden and got that advantage. I noted elsewhere on this thread that since Carter, every single Dem loser was high-SES (Mondale's dad was a pastor so still a Somebody in their local neighborhood but Kamala's dad is a Prof, Gore's dad was a Senator, Dukakis's dad was a doctor, and all the other Dem losers were also upper-middle class or higher. Of the winners, Obama was "merely" middle class (who attended a private HS on scholarship), Biden dropped in to the working class, and Bill was WWC raised by a single mom.
Just hearing Kamala's statements, she didn't talk like anyone a blue collar person would hear in their daily life.
"Pump Up The Volume" time all the f**k over every social media platform.
Rogan and the Right traditionally find their success in hate, in rallying around an "enemy", the MAGA movement and its 'content creators' followed to a T Umberto Eco's warning signs of fascism (written in 1985). Are these things Harris or any responsible leadership should have done?
"...The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”..."
Dems should nominate AOC. AOC does employ some of those methods here and it's effective:
https://nitter.poast.org/TeamAOC/status/1853868403682922902#m