this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024

33 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers

2309 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

"Everyone is taking their skim": How Democratic consultants cashed in on Harris' losing campaign (www.salon.com)

submitted 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat, recriminations have flourished inside the Democratic Party with different factions blaming different policies or groups to explain the loss. Critics, however, describe a deeper structural problem with how the modern Democratic Party runs campaigns, which lines the pockets of party insiders, bloats campaign budgets and boxes out influences from outside party elites.

The Harris campaign broke campaign finance records, raising nearly a billion dollars, but ending the race $20 million in debt, spending millions on consultants and hundreds of millions of dollars on paid media.

According to Shakir, Democratic strategists often see cutting a new 30-second ad as a sort of cure-all to a campaign’s problems and a way for campaigns to address a weakness without re-evaluating the message or stances they’ve taken. “There’s no room you walk into in which saying we should run an ad sounds like bad advice," he said. “The bigger problem to me is when there is a flaw or problem in the campaign it often wrongly becomes understood that there is a 30-second ad that can cure it. If we have a problem with Latino men, or young people or working-class people in Pennsylvania, how about another 30-second ad for that?”

According to Shakir, it doesn’t have to work this way but media firms and campaigns often push for more expensive production strategies like more shoots, or oversaturating airwaves, because it’s an opportunity for everyone to get paid. In some cases, Shakir said, even senior campaign staff will get a cut of ad spending.

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago) (1 children)

If you looked at the districts / states where the has a big ground and ad game, those places performed a percent or two better than the places they didn’t campaign in.

The ground game worked, but the broader national message and messaging strategy didn’t work as well as the republican’s. In places where there was no aggressive campaign spend from the GOP or DNC, the Dems often underperformed by an extra percent or two.

Maybe it’s the new media landscape that the GOP is so good at controlling, or maybe the Dems core message wasn’t strong enough, or maybe it was because Harris had to do what Trump had been campaigning on for 4 years, or maybe people are hurting and think the grass will be greener. People will probably debate this shit for decades.

But, IMHO, the media and ground game did quantifiably move the numbers in Harris’ favor. But she was down by 3% or 4% and only clawed back 1 or 2 with media.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago) (1 children)

Young people aren't watching CNN and MSNBC.

Hell, even millennials aren't watching them.

Harris threw in her lot with a dying media format while not hitting the YouTube/podcast circuit hard.

I'm not saying she needed to go on Rogan, fuck Rogan. I'm saying the numbers bear out that not that many people are watching traditional media outlets in traditional ways.

https://www.nbcuniversal.com/article/msnbc-tops-cnn-presidential-election-night-first-time-network-history

Here's an article crowing about 6 million viewers on election night. How do you think MSNBC fares on a non-election night? It's a joke.

The same article admits that the MSNBC live YouTube channel of their election coverage had about 30 million viewers, which is, let's just say quite a few more, and yet those numbers still pale in comparison to massive YouTube channels like MrBeast (slight retch) which clocks in at 330 million subscriptions.

The reality is that the YouTube and podcast sphere of influence absolutely fucking dwarfs traditional cable television networks and over-the-air networks.

And despite that, even if she had hit the YouTube and podcast circuit, I'm not sure how much it would have moved the needle because I think the real issue is that Republicans succeeded with No Child Left Behind actually gutting our education system. I don't think talking policy works with people who read and speak at less than a sixth grade reading level, which at this point is a significant portion of the country. Trump spoke in word salad, but he never used big words that made them feel dumb. In fact, I'd wager the arguments that came from the right that Kamala spoke in a word salad are entirely related to the fact that they didn't understand half the words she said, so to them, that's a "word salad" of words they don't understand.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 34 minutes ago

IMHO, it’s probably a combo of stuff. She also went up against a guy that is a master at making himself the center of attention for bat shit crazy stuff, then claiming the press is overreacting to what he said.

Harris was able to control the spotlight for the first couple weeks of her campaign. But after the novelty of her unorthodox campaign died down, and the debate memes were behind her, she didn’t really have any keys to jiggle in front of Americans. American’s turned their focus back to the clown, and Harris kind of went back to the old Biden campaign strategy.