HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Monday, November 14, 2016

 
Understanding the apocalypse

by digby















Progressive organizer Mike Lux has written a comprehensive and interesting analysis of the campaign that's worth reading and thinking about in its entirely. There are a lot of moving parts that have to be dealt with so i'm not going to address the whole thing right now. But his very first observation is absolutely brilliant and it's something I haven't seen anyone else point out:
Trump successfully used the media forms he knew to dominate the media narrative. FDR mastered radio; JFK won in ‘60 because of TV; the Obama team won in part because they dominated in email and Facebook. And a huge part of Trump’s victory was because he understood reality TV and Twitter. He knew that being outrageous and entertaining, sounding spontaneous and unscripted, would make him the media favorite and allow him to overwhelm everyone else in terms of free media and coverage. A study I saw in the middle of the Republican primary tracked how the more coverage Trump got, the higher he rose in the polls, even if not all of the coverage was positive. In fact, it didn’t bother Trump if he got bad press, because he was still dominating the debate and the media narrative, making the race all about him. The other dynamic was that all his outrageous statements made him seem much more genuine than other politicians, which voters loved and made them trust him more, even though they knew he wasn’t always truthful on the facts. 
One of the things that had me worried throughout the campaign, and I think my worries were confirmed both by the polling I saw during the campaign, and the final results, is that we Democrats made this campaign too much about Trump. In doing this, we played into his strategy of defining the narrative of the race. Too many of the HFA ads were focused on how dangerous and outrageous and crude Trump was, when in fact those very characteristics were fundamental to his appeal as a change agent. 
I suspect most Democrats thought that by exposing Trump for the cretinous monster he is that a vast majority of our fellow Americans would reject him. We assumed a basic decency would prevail. We were wrong about that and I doubt anyone will ever make that mistake again. We now know what our country is --- or have been reminded of it. 

His observation about Trump's use of the new media is very apt. He is a man of moment who recognized the zeitgeist better than anyone. What confused us was that he's such a throwback to the 1970s, a man whose worldview is grounded in a period that only people who are my age or older would recognize. What I failed to see was that to his fans, his worldview is fresh. His use of the media of the moment to portray that was really quite brilliant.  And to the older folks my age, he's just like them, reminding them of the good old days when they were young and had that same haircut.

I think we underestimated him all along. I certainly knew he could win, but I couldn't wrap my mind around him actually doing it. And I should have. I live in that media world too. He overwhelmed everything by being outrageous and provocative and unscripted. And he got his American alpha male dominance message (that's pretty much all it was) out not only with what he was saying but by how and where he said it. 

And don't underestimate how much that excitement translated into a loathing of politics by people with more sensitive natures. By the end it was almost unbearable to deal with the negativity. Trump understood his audience. Clinton failed to understand that some measure of hers was traumatized and tuning out. Exposing his negativity perversely blew back on her. 

And that brings me to another of Lux's points:
After we won in 2008, our party fell in love with technology and data- big data and what Obama and Clinton strategist Jim Messina calls “little data” and microtargeting. And data is very important to running modern campaigns. But we fell in love with it so much that it sometimes feels like we forgot that we have to create a political movement that excites and motivates and energizes people, a movement that involves actual humans who volunteer to make calls and knock on doors; who give their small contributions online; who get on their Facebook pages and Twitter accounts to post videos and memes; who are excited about convincing their friends and neighbors and coworkers to get out and vote for Democrats. Obama didn’t get 70 million votes in 2008 mainly because of data, he got those votes because people felt they were part of a movement. While they weren’t as excited in 2012, there was still enough residual love for him and that movement to put him over the top after a tough 4 years. We didn’t have that feeling this year, and we need a candidate and party that will get us back to that old time movement religion.
I'll just say this: the inspiration in this campaign was about electing the first woman president. And in the face of shocking misogyny and abusive behavior in person and online from all sides, women retreated to private spheres, as they always do when under assault. They were intimidated. Perhaps that was weak and cowardly but it was the reality. There was no way to create that surging sense of excitement in public without solidarity from the rest of the progressive coalition and it just wasn't there. 

The lesson is that women's equality will never be that old time religion. Democrats will have to find something else. The first woman president will be a hard right Republican. That's the only woman who won't be met with overwhelming misogyny from the other side and will be defended by their own male allies. They are "the deciders." 

Anyway, lots to think about in that piece by Lux. Some I agree with some I'm still thinking over. But it's the most comprehensive piece I've read by a progressive thinker to date that's looking at this from an organic perspective. Well worth the time.