What Went Wrong and How can we fix it?
Look I'm a very honest person, so I'm going to plug myself for a couple of minutes. Freedom of Speech is very important. We as a society sometimes forget the functions free press can serve.
Especially the middle. Because there is no gateway. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Drug Dealers giving out free samples is a gateway to drug addiction. Thats why legalization of marijuana and eliminating the drug dealer is a viable solution. The middle in terms of speech is not a gateway to the right or the left.
It's the glue that holds society together. Because without the middle people go to the far left and they go the far right politically. Donald Trump likes to put a little extra "zip" on everything he says. So does SNL, South Park and lots of entities in the middle.
America needed one of these entities to step up and to counter Trump. But when you have a bunch of for-profit blacklisting companies, that are unregulated, the will to intervene isn't there. In my opinion, you can't blacklist words and ideas. And when your talking about certain political movements (alternative or socialist) that have gained traction recently, its because the middle is being gutted.
People like a little extra "zip" and when they don't get it in the middle they gravitate toward more extreme content. We have all lost track on the internet and asked "How did I get here?"
That being said I've given a lot of free advice. Reducing media coverage for candidates with a lot of name recognition. Because when someone with name recognition says something controversial it generates ratings. And we owe it to our veterans and this wonderful free society to not clickbait an election. But we did and I'll get to that later.
There was another recommendation to push for reforms sooner because it always seems like we're late in the game. And when we don't it creates a great divide. For example slavery and civil rights. Many countries were able to move their people forward without going through an embarrasing war and loss of life. And I'm sure someone in a Trump cabinet would point out the Middle East and other conflict zones. But that's another long story that involves Manifest Destiny, World Wars (fall of Ottoman Empire), and the end of colonialism (drawing lines on a map and high tailing it out of there).
Also during the primaries, the Republican candidates needed to take some gray positions to offset some of Trumps momentum and they weren't able to do that and we are going to get to that now.
Even I get a little frustrated when the media says populism. Because Donald Trump punched you in the gut and now you want another. I think both parties and the major media companies will pay tens of millions of dollars to analyze this election. You should give it to me. Because I'm going to give it you in a cleaner, simplier and more digestable manner.
From the very beginning it was obvious that Donald Trump was going to add a little "zip" to everything he says and all the media and other candidates had to do is counter that. Think of Chris Christie pointing out Robot Rubio.
For instance, Donald Trump would imply Mexicans illegally immigrating to the US are rapists, or purposely refusing to answer a question about David Duke. He's assuming the press will jump to a desired conclusion. This would give him "plausible deniability". Think of Russia invading Ukraine. They send in little green soldiers without uniforms and then say the Russians in the Ukraine are rebelling. Then a couple of weeks later they annex Crimea.
With the press jumping to the desired conclusion he gets to play both angles (tough on immigration (via plausible deniability) and pandering to the alt-right). In addition he gets to discredit the media coverage and make the position so toxic that no other candidate will touch it.
So how do you counter that. Well instead of calling him a bigot and lots of other terms you simply point out what he's doing in a manner that people can wrap their heads around. So he's playing multiple angles, you find an idiomatic expression that's the closest fit and hammer that point home. In this case it's "both sides". He's playing both sides. Obviously there are more than two sides, but you want to say something in a manner that people can wrap their heads around. And you can justify it by saying politicans are always tough on the issues and Trumps also pandering to the far right.
So you hammer home that point "He's playing both sides." And it's like that movie "Inception". The next time he says something controversial or with a little "zip" people will say in their heads "He's playing both sides", like a slimy politician.
And to a certain extent that's what you wanted to do. Trump says he's not a politician, but you make him one. That takes the air out of everything he says.
I'm assuming he would've changed strategies, but as long as you have competent people that can counter and quickly, I don't think he would've made it out of the primaries.
November 2018 (Lemmings)
There was a popular game when I was younger and it involved lemmings. And the urban legend around lemmings was that one lemming jumps off a cliff and all the other lemmings follow. I'm not necessarily going after this extreme angle but more or less the destructive like-minded aspect.
I think you have two political parties that are filled with lemmings. Just a bunch of people that will just follow the leader/group blindly. Part of reaching people in an authentic way is not being a lemming. Because people are varying degrees of political and forcing them to pick a prison gang isn't the most effective way of reaching them.
I don't want to give any free advice before the fact anymore, because I'm tired of contacting Doubleverify and all these other authentication services to get the blocks lifted. It's just ridiculous and there seems to be a level of collusion with big online media giants. Most of the internet cannot compete financially with Google, Facebook and others and there conflicting interests.
Some of these companies like Facebook are just run by extremists. It also seems that Facebook tied some false alias to my name because we shared the first three letters in our first name and forwarded it to the FBI/government. And I understand how Donald Trump feels sometimes because some of these organizations turn a blind eye to the truth.
As an example, if your name begins with Mar then you can be tagged to an alias for Mark, Marcus, Marty, etc. It doesn't just sound insane it is insane. If it wasn't for Fox News and other conservative sites plastering pictures from a facebook profile that has been private for 10 years, I never would've even figured it out.
Also I would like to remind you that after the election Mark Zuckerberg said something about Universal Income which is just riling people up on the left with unrealistic expectations. We know as a fact that entities with leverage will charge more if individuals have more disposable income. So people with superior branding like Apple, Starbucks, etc. And landlords in terms of rents.
Yet, the board of Facebook did not act. The board of Papa Johns acted swifted when its CEO was being racially insensitive. So it seems only one party is held accountable for it's extremism. I think that is incredibly dangerous. Let us not forget that many months later Mark Zuckerberg physically lied in front of congress. He implied if you delete your facebook account then you also delete all your data. This is absolutely false. Once your email address and/or phone number has been binded to your data then it can never be deleted. Only thing you can do is change your primary email address and/or phone number to block that data profile. Even if you delete your facebook profile other platforms that utilize similar targeting can use that data if it has been mined.
Well, why didn't Zuck say that? If everyone used a different email address and phone number (google talk or 4G tablet) specifically for facebook then all of their top line growth from targeting would unravel. Then ticketmaster couldn't advertise to their most frequent customers (because they have your login info), etc, etc, etc. Also it has national security implications because people aren't changing their email addresses and phone numbers. And it's totally being overlooked because of extremism.
So lets say that is lesson number one. Just because someone is your lemming and says a bunch of liberal things it doesn't mean you don't hold them accountable for their extremism. I understand why you don't some angel investor saw the dollar signs in the narrative of a young guy leading a trendy company and we should all be lemmings and like and follow.
Liberal Media
So I might have been a little upset in March when family members started contacting me saying I was on FoxNews and I might have wrote something detailed and not published it. I don't have an airgapped computer because I haven't been paid in 4 years. These authentication blocks are no joke. I don't know what capacity any rogue government, CIA, FBI have to take documents from your personal computer. The gist was history and racial conditioning in America is progressive. Things were bad and they became progressively better. History has setbacks, Fall of the Roman empire, WWI, WWII, and many conflicts around the world that leave countries in worst shape afterwards.
There is baseline conditioning with African Americans, Native Americans, and the Jewish. We have days and months to commemorate the injustices these peoples endured as well as musuems to reinforce this conditioning. Traditionally the Republicans have not weakened the rhetoric around these groups enough and it has allowed the media to use this baseline conditioning to rally votes for the democrats in a predictable manner.
But with Trump his daughter is Jewish (and he has taken strong pro-israel stances), and he does a good job of embracing African Americans willing to rally around him (Ben Carson, Kanye, Milwaukee Sheriff, etc). But, it seems he is sticking it hard to groups that don't have baseline conditioning in America (illegal immigrants and muslims). The media without the baseline conditioning continue to take the bait and believe they are going to get a predictable outcome. The media has gotten by with lemmings because of this baseline conditioning and the Republicans playing into it eventhough it is a position of weakness. Now it looks like the media is struggling find a lemming that can counter the narrative. Because Republicans have found this button they can push and get a predictable outcome.
The beauty of free speech is that you know where the Democrats stand and you know where the Republicans stand. You know what Republicans think and you know what Democrats think. More importantly you know how democrats will respond and how republicans will respond. Of course there are moderates in the middle, but I'm trying to simply the analogy.
The liberal media needs a hammer, someone who not only understands the problem but can overcome. Eventhough understanding these issues more intuitively might have helped. I think the Metoo movement has been very informative about how much you are paying lemmings (some of whom are chasing tail 30 percent of the time). I want $25 million a year as a lump sum once a year. I don't need a contract because I assume you will enjoy sleeping at night. I will structure your shows a bit better and find out what is lacking in the support staff for these anchors. There could be too many extremist voices or not enough of the viewpoints necessary to advance strategic counter positions quickly enough. I understand that is a large amount but maybe you should control your extremists better next time. Send non-refundable downpayment through paypal to admin @ jokes4us.com begin negotiations (include details in memo).
Trump
The midterms are today and it looks like your going to lose seats in the house. I think 20-30 will be a good day and 50-60 a bad day. Now I'm going to tell you why you lost those seats and you are not going to be too happy about it.
Obviously recent extremist shootings play into a position of strength with the liberal media because of baseline conditioning. But I'm going to go more in depth a little bit later in the day.
Alternate Timelines (November 2020)
Despite the fact Coronavirus has defined the 2020 election cycle, at a certain point in time over the last few months each party had a chance to control their own destiny.
Instead of focusing on a projection, I would like to focus on the element of chance. In 2016, Trump put a little zip on issues with low to negative baseline conditioning.
The democrats took the bait and the undervote favored Donald Trump (vote that isn't easily polled and can be turned out with enthusiasm (campaign rallies, ads, misinformation, etc).
What were the elements of chance in 2016, Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and the Arab Spring left a power vacuum in certain parts of the Middle East. This gave rise to ISIS. The Arab Spring fractured many governments
in the region (Bashar al-Assad) and while they were fighting themselves, ISIS was able to fill that power vacuum. Then there was social media. For some reason they didn't want to hire Muslims to moderate their platforms.
Some might say the Jewish hierarchy of Facebook didn't want to hire Muslims. They chose instead to focus on an automated solution. Well, automated solutions take time. They can be very effective, but they take time to develop.
In the meantime ISIS effectively abused the social media platforms to get out their message, recruit tens of thousands of individuals to fight along aside them, and in some cases to be their child brides.
This lack of leadership from social media, led to people, who were mentally ill, being inspired to commit acts of terror. These acts of terror allowed Donald Trump to put a little zip on the issue with his Muslim Ban argument. And the
media lost their mind, but this was a major talking point in 2016. I remember a debate moderator asking the remaining candidates in the Republican primary to raise their hands if they disagreed with the Muslim ban. And I immediately thought "You're playing Russian roulette with their candidacies".
That was the wrong way to handle that issue. It was the wrong angle to hit the issue and was a harbinger of things to come. Donald Trump would say something provoking and it would be immediately termed as disqualifying. (Grabs pussy, defending size of his hands, attacking McCain or any politician/anchor that said something negative)
It apparently wasn't disqualifying. It was more of a distraction. Because of the cancel culture, news rating, and the Democratic brand; there is a need to respond to his remarks. In doing so the democrats went into election day with soft support and Trump went into election day with firm support.
Then there was the October surprise and more Clinton emails. It seemed like it was something out a House of Cards episode where some Republicans didn't want to go down on a sinking ship. And as it became clear on election night, Donald Trump had an
easier time peeling away that soft support at the end, more so than the Democrats ability to peel away at his firm support.
Then came the Midterm Invasion. The stakes were relatively high because impeachment was on the line. The democrats had been playing up the racist narrative about Trump supporters. And unfortunately there were some mass shootings and mentally ill individuals mailing suspicious items to well-known liberals.
Conventional wisdom would have said Trump was headed for some heavy losses but they didn't materialize. The Trump invasion claim moderated his losses. And why is that?
Fast Forward to 2020 and Coronavirus pandemic.
It seems that the tables have turned and bad luck is knocking on the Republicans doorstep. The dynamics of this election remind me of 2008. The democrats had a focused
talking point in the financial collapse and they had ACORN. This combination allowed Obama to win close results in Indiana and North Carolina. Also the democrats were
able to win a crucial senate race in Minnesota which eventually gave the democrats a filibuster proof 60 seats. The democrats once again have a focused talking point
with the coronavirus pandemic and have a combination of online registrations/mail-in ballots that favor their constituencies. I wouldn't predict a dem rout this time around, but
it's going to be difficult for Trump to go from a rout to a victory. It is likely that Trump loses the election by 6-7 million in the popular vote, but he probably still has a 20-25 percent
chance of winning enough swing states to pull off an upset.
I think Trump could've pulled off the upset, if he recognized the main issue in this election. It wasn't the coronavirus.
It was the other "white meat". Usually the reference is for pork and chicken, but in this case Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were the other "white meat". Which is why they polled better against Trump from the start. They peeled off a little of Trump support from people who like to vote for white/older white gentlemen.
People they don't like being called a racist old man or a racist uneducated hick, or whatever. Especially for 5 years. Thats a long time. Even with the nicknames. "Sleepy" Joe, I mean it doesn't work.
Joe Biden is the other "white meat" and you have to call him Crooked, Slimy, Lying to separate yourself from the other "white meat". I'm not going to give you qualifying adjectives because Joe Biden is likely to be the new president. But, you can google
adjectives that start with "A", "B" and so on find some. Sleepy, is the distraction. It's like you wanted to call him Slow Joe and your staff was like that's too mean and it will garner sympathy.
So your like I'll call him Sleepy. But those type of adjectives (Sleepy, ugly, fat, etc) aren't effective at moving the needle and you wanted to repeat something that was effective at separating yourself from the other "white meat".
The Race to the Bottom (November 2022)
Another election cycle and the only thing that is crystal clear is that this is a race to the bottom. Most pollsters say that the democrats are going to lose the House. I would tend to agree that its probably not going to be a good day for house democrats. Polling in previous elections have been inaccurate, partially due to people not wanting to publically support toxic candidates.
Also when you have a toxic candidate, the pollsters want to guide you into picking the right candidate. Jump on the bandwagon 54 percent of population wants this candidate, don't think too hard just vote for so and so. In reality people have grown wary of these tactics because of their frequency and usage. It seems that democrats in some circles are interested in having toxic candidates on the ballot.
They believe maybe 1 or 2 will sneak through, but the vast majority will lose. That might be case in senate elections this year. I think one aspect benefitting democrats is that a lot of people voted in 2020. If people vote once then they are likely to vote again. On the other side of the equation, I think one factor that is being overlooked entirely is persuasion and the fact that the anonymity of the 2020 vote is questionable.
I think bluer states went bluer (most of the 7 million popular votes Trump lost were in New York and California), and redder states leaned a little more red then people had predicted. The purple states went bluer by a smidge. This idea didn't just pop into my head. I'll admit it. But, I like to vote early on election day and put the ballot into the machine. The kids usually have the day off and I grab some Mcdonalds on the way home.
As was the case in 2020. I go in early and I expect to be in and out within 10 minutes. But that didn't happen. I live in Michigan and eventhough I only had a couple of people ahead of me. It took me 25-30 minutes and covid was all the rage, and I was like WTF is going on. Well as it turns out, In Michigan you can spoil your ballot. I don't want to be mean and I don't want to be unecessarily nice. From what I could gather from the conversation,
some surburban chads voted for someone they didn't want to vote for. I'm guessing it was a Happy Wife Happy Life scenario. You mail these ballots out and your wife kind of looks over your shoulder to make sure your not voting for Trump. Because if you do, all hell is going to break loose and you might end up getting a divorce. I think if there is a red wave even by slim margins this could be a contributing factor. There are less mail-in ballots and there is less persuasion.
Other factors helping the Republicans include inflation, gas prices, crime, and general economic concerns. When you look at the house races in 2020, the Republicans didn't do enough to pacify talking points surrounding Covid. In these house races there are first time politicians and you are trying to get them across the finish line. And Democrats had those positive talking points and they were able to get their candidates across the finish line.
This cycle the talking points (inflation, gas prices, crime, and the economy) favor the Republicans. Democrats have the grunts and ad dollars, but they can't pacify these issues so its going to allow the Republicans to claim the House of Representatives. In the same respect the Republicans haven't done a great job of interpreting what overturning Roe vs Wade means. You have many far right candidates saying no exceptions. Especially in purple states its too aggressive.
I think abortion is big enough of an issue that in the northern purple states that "no exceptions" might be too much too soon. People might prefer one party or candidate on an issue. Pollsters might say this percentage believe the economy is the number one issue, but that support might not be firm. When there is a big gap with "no exceptions" on abortion and its constantly messaged in the ads, that might end up being firm support.
I understand wanting to be more conservative then everyone else during the primaries, but Republicans (Party leadership) didn't do a great job pacifying aggresive positions. The Republicans have grunts, ad dollars I'm going to give an example of pacifying a position like this.
You get asked about your aggressive position on abortion. Instead of leaning into it, which is what they want you to do when they ask the question so they can get some outrageous soundbite, the party needed to coach the candidates to go a little sideways and not give your opponent that soundbite. Both parties have grunts and ad dollars, but you don't have people who can be ruthless with messaging in real time.
Let's say I was coaching this talking point. Someone asks you about your aggressive position on abortion. Instead of giving them a soundbite, say "I think we need to put a value on human life, when we look at the cities that have the most gang related crimes they also have the highest amount of abortions. And if we place this high value on life at conception, people might think twice about taking a life, people might be kinder to each other....We need to make people understand how much human life means...." Then you save a little bit for a followup. "Lets talk about California, the most liberal state in the nation, they have high taxes, high homelessness, and high crime. And they have lots of abortions. But if your walking on a california beach and accidentally step on a sea turtle nest and break a couple of eggs, you might go to jail or pay a hefty fine. Because they value that life at conception. And people are kind to the turtles and its beautiful...... (Once you lead the candidates in the right direction, they can all add their unique expressions).
Minus One