Sounds like we flew too close to the sun…
General Trump Administration F**kery Thread (2025-2029)
- Thread starter OfTheCross
- Start date
That's cap, I watched the debate and Trump was NOT better on policy nor was he more specific.
People just wanted Trump. Grievance politics is very hard to beat...it's that kind of country.
the cac mamba
Veteran
no, they didn't want trump. they wanted a return to the costs of the pre-covid economyThat's cap, I watched the debate and Trump was NOT better on policy nor was he more specific.
People just wanted Trump. Grievance politics is very hard to beat...it's that kind of country.
biden and kamala failed, because they refused to say "i inherited a disaster, after trump destroyed the economy". they just never said it. so people were unimpressed with their inability to articulate why people should be happy with the post-covid economy
it was a tough spot to be in, messaging wise. but they could have been better
Pull Up the Roots
Breakfast for dinner.
There's a difference between using multi-platform strategy wisely and sending someone into a space that has been openly hostile. During the election, Rogan was posting memes of Kamala in a prison jumpsuit, ffs. That's not neutral, it's malicious. These people don't engage in good faith.
Dems can do outreach to young men without handing credibility to people who helped build the smear machine in the first place.
I know some people will say, "Well, that's why Dems should go on regularly," but that misses the power dynamic. These hosts aren't interested in a balanced, recurring presence -- they platform disinformation weekly, and any "nice Democrat" moment becomes a token exception, not a new norm. Remember, the hosts set the tone, not the guests.
That's why you don't change a space by being polite in it, you change it when the platform itself is committed to honest engagement. And that's not what's happening here. These audiences aren't looking for a political conversion; they're there for confirmation, entertainment, and tribal validation. And unless that changes, playing court jester to an openly hostile crowd is only self-sabotage. We've seen this happen with Newsome. He thought being buddy buddy with, and appearing alongside these people, would change something, but all it did was serve to provide them with content to further their agenda.
Instead of sending Dems into hostile podcast spaces hoping to be "likable," they should invest in building long-form, engaging content that respects nuance and treats the audience like they have brains. Of course you have to compete on authenticity, but you have to do it on your own terms. You're not going to get that with people like Rogan.
And yeah, I get that these shows have massive reach, but reach doesn't mean influence if your message is drowned out by the usual noise. The real long game should be about shifting people's media environments, not dropping guests into "enemy territory." If Dems want to reach disillusioned young men, they need to show up where those guys are questioning things, not where they're doubling down.
Honestly, we should also be questioning why podcasts like Rogan's get to be the arbiters of legitimacy for candidates. Why is it always Dems who have to prove themselves to spaces that openly mock them and help promote these false narratives? We have to stop treating this like it's simple media strategy, when it is more akin to asymmetric warfare. These people need to be interrogated for once.
Long-term, the goal shouldn't be win Rogan's audience, it should be to cultivate culture and spaces that reach young men before they get swept into reactionary pipelines. And that means going outside -- that means youth-focused economic messaging, pro-labor content, smart creators who talk policy without condescension -- and yes, you can work in humor too.
In my previous post I specifically said I didn’t like the idea of Kamala going on Joe Rogan for that reason. It was a trap and beneath her.
But that doesn’t mean you ignore the man-o-sphere channels completely. You find another person in the space that is more amicable, like a Theo Von and dip your toes in it. At least get Andy Beshear or Jon Ossoff out there talking to that audience. Do something.
Rogan just had a liberal State Senator on there from Texas on his show and said the guy should run for President. Like a week ago. He’s a chameleon and not really steadfast in any of his beliefs. Rogan even refused to endorse Trump and didn’t want him on his show until Trump’s campaign basically courted him, knowing the reach.
Dem’s had a strong VP candidate with crossover appeal (gun owner, veteran, Midwest roots, etc). I tend to think the Rogan audience wouldn’t hate him. The problem is nobody knows how this strategy would have played out because Dems ignored it. We do know Democrats lost the swing vote. We know Rogan, Schulz and Theo Von are already showing voters remorse riding for Trump. Hindsight clearly indicates there was a better way to try tapping into that demographic. Democrat leadership just didn’t care.
Pull Up the Roots
Breakfast for dinner.
That comment sounds more like an indictment of the electorate than of the campaign. Trump didn't win by some clever trick or because Democrats failed to put their message out. He won because millions of people watched a man who attempted a coup, got convicted, rambled about people eating cats and dogs, and *still* decided, "Yup, that's my guy."
The idea that the Democrats didn't provide a counter-narrative is false. The truth was being shouted from the rooftops. People just didn't care. They were given the contrast between authoritarianism and democracy, chaos and stability, cruelty and competence, and they still chose cruelty. That's not a messaging failure. That's a moral failure from the electorate.
And yes, young people consume media differently. But that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their choices. If you're consuming podcasts and clips where outright lies, conspiracies, and hate are being normalized daily, and you walk away more moved by that than by policies actually aimed at helping you, that's not on the campaign. That's on the consumer.
Look at how many union men voted against their own interests in the face of a person who was advocating union busting out in the open. Look at Teamster leadership getting in bed with the man who helped weaken labor protections in this country vs. the woman who cast the deciding vote to save their pensions. Look at how her policies polled better in a blind test, but were rejected once it was revealed they were hers.
At a certain point, we have to stop pretending everyone is just confused or under-informed. No. Many people are making clear, informed, and frankly reckless choices that reflect their values. They weren't tricked. They want the outrage. They want the circus. And that's the real problem we have to face.
The real failure of the Dems campaign was in turning out key portions of its base, but let's not pretend the people who went out and enthusiastically voted for Trump did so because Democrats failed to reach them. They were reached. They just chose the other side.
the cac mamba
Veteran
i thought Trump defeated ISIS?
choc_cardigan
Squad
And yes, young people consume media differently. But that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their choices. If you're consuming podcasts and clips where outright lies, conspiracies, and hate are being normalized daily, and you walk away more moved by that than by policies actually aimed at helping you, that's not on the campaign. That's on the consumer.
This needs to be on a billboard. But that would need Americans to hold themselves to some type of accountability for their actions.
This needs to be on a billboard. But that would need Americans to hold themselves to some type of accountability for their actions.
I hear you that the electorate is cooked. That is true. But that doesn’t tell me Kamala’s campaign did enough in the context of this topic. What was Democrat’s specific strategy to appeal to the male 18-30 demographic? I’m genuinely asking. Because Katy Perry singing at rallies & a televised special with Oprah doesn’t exactly connect with men our age.
Two things can be true - we live in a country full of idiots and Democrats underperformed with younger male demographic because there was minimal strategic effort
How does a woman (much less a black woman) even appeal to that demo the in current social environment? Most dudes under 30 are in full on manosphere mode. She was going to be portrayed as some kind of woke feminist who hates white people and wants to give all your money to illegal immigrants no matter what she said or did.
Pull Up the Roots
Breakfast for dinner.
No, you should ignore them. These aren't rational actors who can be persuaded by logic, because they didn't arrive at their positions through logic.
Theo Von is just the next iteration of what Rogan was early on: someone who *seems* open-minded because he interviews a "wide range" of guests. But that's just the bait. It creates the illusion of intellectual curiosity, when really it's a way to build credibility with a broader audience before funneling them toward the same tired reactionary talking points. They play to an audience, and that performance of openness is part of the strategy. This is why you build alternative media paths to reach people before they get funneled into that reactionary pipeline.
Rogan having a liberal guest and saying something flattering doesn't mean anything. That's just part of how he maintains plausible deniability. He sprinkles in a progressive voice here and there to mask the broader arc of the show, which is overwhelmingly hostile to anything left-of-center. It's simply branding.
The bigger issue here is the assumption that if Democrats had just shown up in these spaces more, the swing vote could've been won over, but that overlooks how deeply invested these ecosystems are in narratives of cultural grievance, masculinity panic, and anti-establishment posturing. These podcasts aren't just content, they serve as identity spaces.
We know how this would have played out. Rogan and his podcast, like Elon and Twitter, became an arm of the Trump campaign, complete with all the misinformation, slander and conspiracies.
Rogan, Schulz, Von, PBD -- they all know how to posture as post-partisan while catering to one side. That's the con. And engaging with that space on their terms just legitimizes it further.
You emphasize policy and not the person. You flood media with surrogates that resonate with the demo you’re after.
Ossoff, Shapiro, Mayor Pete, Lucas Kunce, Colin Allred, hell maybe even Raskin.
Literally anything is better than ignoring the demographic and pretending it doesn’t exist
Val Demings wouldn’t have these issues. Kamala is just awkward and a panderer. She doesn’t have the heart to keep it real. She’s not dumb. She’s a coward.
Kamala has never told anyone: NO.
the cac mamba
Veteran
Raskin is Tom Hanks in Philadelphia
let's leave him out