Monday, November 11, 2024

Everyone Has An Answer

 


But Mad Dog has no answer.

Why did 20 million fewer voters turn out to vote for Kamala Harris than they had for Biden? Actually, that may not even be true, but whatever the number, she got fewer votes than Biden and that difference may or may not have beaten Trump who got about the same 72 million.



The numbers matter.

The breakdown and analysis of the numbers matter: More Hispanic males and Black males voting for Trump likely means something. More white suburban females voting for Trump likely means something. 



Clearly, however you slice and dice it, there were more Americans who voted for Trump in what appeared to be a free and fair election.

Bernie Sanders says this is because Democrats have abandoned the working class.



Seth Moulton says this is because the Democrats have tried to please every special interest group--transgenders for example--which alienates the great majority of working class White voters who see Democrats kissing up to Indians (Native Americans), transgenders, gays, People of Color, what have you but nothing addressed to whitebread, "ordinary" Americans, who are actually still in the majority. 

It's not Just This Guy


Arab Americans in Michigan say she lost because of Gazza and losing Michigan, but even if she had won Michigan she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, so Michigan didn't matter.  In fact those last three no Democrat had any business winning in the first place, they are all Confederate states or Confederate diaspora states.

Re-elected by their adoring constituents 


And it's true, the Deep Blue states of New England and the West Coast stayed blue as did Colorado and New Mexico. 

So, if everyone has a reason for the demise of the Democratic Party, why should Mad Dog be left out?



For Mad Dog, the reason for the apocalypse is that Democrats do not have an entertainment/political propaganda juggernaut like the Republican FOX/Rogan/Breitbart/Storm Front/erstwhile Rush Limbaugh.

No matter where you go in America, you can hear workman, roofers, carpenters, garage mechanics, working men listening to radio right wing and loving it, laughing along and getting indoctrinated.



Of course, people choose to tune into FOX, for the most part. They know what they are going to hear.

And liberals tried putting Al Franken on the radio once to offer a liberal alternative, but, truth be told he wasn't very funny and he didn't last long.

There was a reason Joseph Goebbels was so important to Hitler and the Third Reich: he was the minister of propaganda and without a marketing wing, the National Socialist Workers party would have been just another crackpot cabal on the fringes.

Bad Optics: Not What We Should Be Selling


Mad Dog once tried to launch a rendition of "Spitting Image" the British puppet show which lampooned various politicos, but, despite lots of puppets and an effort to launch on youtube, he got all of about 15 clicks.

So, clearly, Mad Dog does not have the Rush Limbaugh karma. Or maybe it's the message. Or maybe just not funny enough, or not enough Koch brothers money behind it, or something.

But, from all Mad Dog can tell, door knocking and telephone banks cannot penetrate the minds of Americans. Something else has already done that and continues to do that, so you hear FOX phrases coming at you from a wide variety of citizens. 



Mad Dog may be wrong, but he thinks it's entirely possible it's not that the message conveyed is wrong or unattractive--it's the delivery of that message, the media which has destroyed Democrats. "It's the media, not the message," or perhaps, "The media IS the message."



Mad Dog suspects  until Democrats master the airwaves, the podcasts, the social media X sites, they will watch Trump and his progeny dominate political power.

We sure won't be beating him with blogs and the New York Times.




5 comments:

  1. What does mad dog think about the one million dollar payment from the Harris campaign to Oprah? Is that the kind of effort mad dog has in mind. More pay outs to celebrities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And now we are comparing donations from rich people and saying the Democrats are corrupt b/c they take rich people money? What is your point?

      Delete
    2. Oh, wait. It was not “from” but. “To.” I missed the preposition. So now we are saying the corrupt Democrats pay off corrupt influencers? And there is no Rupert Murdoch and the Dems soliciting love from Oprah is corrupt. As if you’d have to pay Oprah a dime to love Harris. Is that it?

      Delete
    3. Mad Dog,
      We are all well aware that Trump and the right are poor losers- criminally so. Now we can see they’re lousy winners as well. Oprah states emphatically that she was not paid a dime to endorse Harris. Her production company was paid for set up for the event, the same way the Trump campaign paid vendors for the cost of his campaign events. Well provided he paid the vendors, he has a history of doing otherwise.

      As for the Democrats message delivery- it does appear there needs to be another method. Of course lies and promising the moon is often an easier sell, so there’s that to contend with as well.
      Maud

      Delete
  2. Pay outs to celebrities seem to be a high crime, if not a misdemeanor, and one wonders where that $1 million payment got reported, and by whom and if it ever even happened. No documentation or reference or cited site required. Just say it and it's true.

    ReplyDelete