US Election results

[IwantToRetire]

Kamala Harris 27
45.2% popular vote
12,768,875 votes

Donald Trump 99
53.8% popular vote
15,275,564 votes

270 to win

U.S. election results 2024 | CBC News

6/11/2024 @ 01:25 GMT

I thought some on the thread might like some lighter critiques of the US election results, so here are some thoughts from some fairly big, influential YouTube media criticism channels about the reactions of Hollywood celebs.

These four critics can be a bit sexist at times in that they seem to think only men like action or sci-fi film/TV and that women only like romcoms or stories about feelings (to be honest, as a female nerd I've been putting up with that nonsense belief from men for decades 🙄 🖖). And I've noticed that they seem to feel that certain human virtues are either masculine or feminine (Disparu much more than the others but I put that down to him being young), but, having said all that, these critics are also amusing and have their finger on the pulse of many media fandoms.

And I find that even though they irritate me, occasionally, they have some interesting things to say about the effect of postmodernism and relativism on the modern media landscape and about how fans are reacting to it:

Critical Drinker -

Nerdrotic -

Midnight's Edge -

Disparu -

Yes but....

Actually the confusion between politics and culture isn't helpful. The democrats definately encouraged this by relying on celebrity endorsements etc (and nonsense on the Whitehouse lawn). But there are people who vote for some political parties because they feel "alienated" by either modern culture (movies and TV) and annoyed at its drift/the messages it sends. Or because the feel allienated/isolated from society in other ways - lack of a social network. All of which aren't really primarily things politics can solve. Sure it exists in the same society and politics and culture play of against each other. But parties decide things like taxes and laws. Voting a certain way to "own the libs" because you are upset that modern movies are too touchy-feely/feminist, or because some rando on Tik-tok is ranting about toxic masculinity is not a sensible way of viewing politics. I think out of touch politicians are a problem, and some of that out of touchness is probably caused by an over-reliance on media and cultural "elites" messaging what is important rather than more normal people. But people like Critical Drinker are interesting when they talk about films (though he can be way too whiny at times). I think part of the whole problem is the youtube algorithm need for everyone to mix their art and politics together (Ben Shapiro banging on about the Barbie movie for example. He was always right wing but he was an intelligent thinker once. Being a content maker rotted his brain(.

I’m late joining this thread and haven’t read any of it, but I found this article interesting this morning.

“When I think of the opportunities the Harris campaign missed to articulate even the most obvious financial hypocrisy on the other side, I am drawn back to a meeting I attended last month in Pittsburgh. It was a “get out the vote” event, featuring some of the Harris campaign’s top surrogates, including governors Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan – who sat on stage answering a quiz delivered by the actor and singer Billy Porter. The topics ranged from the important issues of Taylor Swift’s origin story to the creator of Crayola crayons.
^^
At precisely the same time that these rising stars of the Democratic party fawned over a celebrity, Elon Musk was 200 miles away, delivering his first million-dollar cheque to a swing-state voter in Harrisburg. He was using a tiny fraction of his personal fortune to help tilt the election for Trump by awarding $1m every day to a random person who had signed his petition supporting the first and second amendments – the legally questionable caveat being that the signatories had to be registered voters.
^^
Musk, the world’s richest man, will lead the new Department of Government Efficiency as the US stares down the prospect of a new era of oligarchy. Neither Shapiro nor Whitmer have said much on the matter since leaving the stage that evening.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/ive-been-to-more-than-100-trump-rallies-since-2016-this-is-why-i-think-he-won

I think maybe...Trump was successful:

• playing on people's emotions/fears rather than trying to communicate policies
• Focusing on huge feel good rallies
• Telling outrageous lies or exaggerations and relying on people's loyalty to accept those lies (which weirdly made them more committed not less)
• Being all post truthy
• Insulting the other side
• Talking down to people/oversimplifying issues

So maybe the Democrats thought that the key to beating him was to replicate some of those techniques (though not to the same extent)? But it backfired because what works for Trump doesn't work for other politicians and in a way that's a good thing, because otherwise politics would end up being completely degraded. But it does also mean we are facing another 4 years of Trump.

lon Musk was 200 miles away, delivering his first million-dollar cheque to a swing-state voter in Harrisburg. He was using a tiny fraction of his personal fortune to help tilt the election for Trump by awarding $1m every day to a random person who had signed his petition supporting the first and second amendments – the legally questionable caveat being that the signatories had to be registered voters.

American democracy in action! 😡

One thing I do like about UK politics is that there is a spending limit for all parties. It means that they actually have to think more carefully about where they put resources, and TBH makes the whole election less frenetically overwhelming than the US (some voters had canvassers for the same party visiting them 3 times apparently. Which is too much). It also stops foolishness like this (and means the political parties in theory at least don't have to be as much in the pockets of big businesses. In theory at least).
UK politics has other issues of course.

What Musk did was deeply dodgy from an electoral perspective, but his spending was a pittance by comparison with the overall democrat campaign, which spent far more money overall.

But not wisely, clearly.

Indeed, clearly not

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14066449/Laura-Helmuth-Editor-Americas-oldest-magazine-faces-call-resign-anti-Trump-rant.html

Just adding this. Apparently Helmuth has now resigned so quite possibly the Scientific American may just become a bit more scientific again?

Was his contribution a pittance compared to other individual donors or the overall Trump campaign? How much did the Republicans spend?

I should say it was a pittance compared to either campaign, but it looks as if most media accept that the democrats spent more

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna179341

www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/11/14/how-did-kamala-harriss-campaign-rack-up-a-debt-after-record-fundraising

www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

These articles suggest that Musk fundraiser £130m through the standard big donor route which was a significant contribution to the Trump campaign, but still less than 10% of what Harris spent and less than 20% of what Trump spent

For me the fact that YouTube media critics are calling out Hollywood for inserting postmodernism and 'The Message' into films/TV/video games is a great example of them noticing the so-called Breitbart Doctrine:

"The Breitbart Doctrine is the idea that "politics is downstream from culture" and that to change politics one must first change culture."

Attempts at influencing culture and at creating political change have been a feature of television and film in some form or other for decades but in recent years film and TV (and video game) production companies have gone all in for EDI, and social justice, and that has had a huge affect on the type of media being produced as well as on the choices of people who are given the opportunity to produce media - so many actors, producers, directors, writers, game designers describe themselves as activists these days.

Hollywood executives are very open (when attending business summits) about the fact that they want to change viewers' minds, that they see themselves as having a social responsibility to use their influence to change culture, and that achieving positive EDI-related ESG scores are very important to their companies when they need financing for their media products. And when it comes to an example of media and politics influencing each other directly, the Democratic Party politicians in California have implemented legislation that imposes strict EDI quotas and requirements for all media made in the that State.

So I see your argument but I disagree that these complaints are solely made on the basis of the critics feeling alienated or isolated from society, or on the basis of them disliking touchy-feely content. I think they're noticing and drawing attention to the more overt political messaging that is coming from one side of the aisle, via the deliberate change in nature of the media landscape, and to the fact that this is being reinforced by legislative changes such as those in California and the changes at the Federal level to legislation such as Title IX.

Reduce it to Dr Who and the complaints about Dr Who having a 'moral message' in every episode rather than just being fun and scary as it used to be.

I don't think it was about Jody Whittaker being female either. The scripts for her run were just dire.

Over the summer me and my 10 year old did a Dr Who-a-thon and watched every episode (bar four which were too scary for me) and its really striking.

The quality has dropped as the purpose has increased.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for cultural shift in tv, particularly sci-fi (Star Trek did a lot of good work in that department).

But it has to a) hit the right pitch to the public without over egging it b) not be otherwise at the expense of the quality of the scripts.

It almost has to be an invisible and seemless extension of reality rather than pitched so awkwardly and so centrally that you feel like you are being lectured to and its not representative of a believeable representation. (Historical dramas being the obvious example of this).

The BBC is actually more aligned with the UK government/public (it's a national broadcaster) and while I can completely understand people being irritated with programmes like Dr Who it would be absolutely stupid to voice your disapproval at the ballot box. There is local politics, national politics, culture, social media, religion, corporations and they all influence our lives in different ways. Of course these ways overlap - and those different aspects do interact with and talk to each other. They aren't discrete islands. But the melding into one of all issues is really unhelpful and I think driven mostly by social media and the algorithms on places like YouTube. But people can't then turn around and criticise the Democratic party for relying on celebrity endorsements if they are confusing party politics and Hollywood themselves. (Yes Hollywood is political but not in the way you are suggesting).
Reducing things doesn't always work. Case in point, the "woke messaging" in Dr Who happened under a Conservative government. What would you have them or another political party do? Put more government control of the BBC and other media outlets in their manifesto? That would be out of the frying pan into the fire. There Are issues with the management of the BBC and the way certain agendas were pushed - there was that excellent NI radio series. It is a civil society issue in which people have the power to push for changes. But fixing it is a lot more complicated than voting for a non woke party in a national election.

So yeah, that was long, but if people genuinely did vote for Trump in the American elections because they are upset at how woke Hollywood is then I sorry but they are stupid. (more likely they were motivated by pragmatic things like the economy or men in women's sport etc)

As far as voicing your disapproval at the ballot box; it does and can have an impact. Reform did so well not just because of the immigrants their voters see around them day to day, but also because of what they see as the destruction of English culture - including by the BBC in ‘historical’ dramas. Those voters didn’t see the conservatives as doing enough to protect this. Though by voting this way they split the Tory vote and contributed to a huge Labour majority that calls them ‘far right’ and cracks down on their expression of dissatisfaction.

What's interesting is that RFK has been made head of health (replace trans woman Richard/Rachel Levine). No RFK is controversial because of some views on vaccine, but he is also against a lot of chemicals added to water due to some studies linking it gender dysphoria.

TBH removing chemicals from water can only be a good thing, but it's also good that there will be a trans-sceptic in office too (even if the vaccines may be an issue).

If you drop a pan on the floor it will make a loud noise. If you drop a pan on the floor, I will be able to have chips for tea. Chips are without a doubt a good thing. But you would expect me to explain my reasoning a bit more than just saying "lots of people like chips".

My point is more than political messages by media institutions has worn incredibly thin.

Look at the viewing figures for Dr Who. It's still in real danger of being axed permanently by the BBC (selling rights to Disney at this point is an interesting move).

It's a good illustration of the point that the public is fed up of this top down thinking and making programmes with a message rather than always keeping your audience front and central in terms of how you appeal to them.

The later series have catered more to the diehards rather than family entertainment.

Certainly DS loved the older episodes and happily wants to watch again but says Jodie Whittaker is rubbish. And that's a real shame.

It was a bit of a shallower point than yours.

But yeah, it's about understanding and listening to your audience ultimately, rather than moralising at them.

It just doesn't work. People won't watch something they can't connect with. Same way they won't buy newspapers that print stories that don't interest them or concern them. Same way you don't click social stories or follow people that don't draw you in to begin with because it's your pre-existing priority/concerns.

When the people that I know who are pro-message tell me that some programmes are not fun to watch because the message has replaced plot, character and good scripts, you know that this is now flat out preaching. It's as subtle as a series of Victorian etchings of a 'fallen women' where she ends up dead on the bank of a river.

I don't want to watch preachy, manipulative bollocks. So I don't. That's why viewing figures are down. That's why programmes like the Acolyte don't have a second series.

I don't want politicians to be preaching the same preachy, manipulative bollocks either. I don't want UK policy based on an ideology spread from Tumblr and US Universities. I want policies that are based in truth and reality.

It turns out that many Americans are fed up of the message in politics and entertainment too, and I have no doubt that this has - to a degree - influenced how people voted.

I haven't checked the Dr Who figures. But even our teen told us that they were not watching this one after the overly pushed messaging of the previous Dr. And we haven't watched any of it. For me this is the first time since the 1970s.

I suspect though that those who have pushed this messaging through will actively dismiss the fall in audience as being based in hate rather than political message exhaustion.

I think I agree with you on some parts! And I do see that the way that the political messaging from parties has become alienating is very similar to the way that political messaging from the media/movies etc had become alienating. I just think that, the way another poster (not you) described voting for Reform was a reasonable way of protesting what they see as the destruction of English culture in historical dramas is magical thinking at best.

Personally, I think the only thing that political parties in a liberal democracy have a duty to persuade voters of, is that liberal democracy is a system that can work. I think maybe the apparent "end of history" in the 90s following the end of the cold war and the seeming unstoppable spread of it through the world bred some complacency and everyone got a bit distracted.

I have stopped watching several very long running shows because of the hyperbolised political messaging the writers starting following over the past years. I don't mind seeing some political situations dealt with subtly, but that seems a thing of the past.

Have to say I've stopped visting certain art galleries in my city as a result of the overt and relentless political messaging in recent times.

Indoctrination is a big turn off.

@biscuitandcake I was thinking about that children's book that was posted as evidence for why people voted for Trump, it said things like, "Some children are boys. Some children are girls. Some are both. Some are neither."
It occurred to me that if I came across a children's book for sale in a major, mainstream bookstore that said, "Some people are white. Some people are black. Some people believe that black and white people can marry and have families. Some people believe it is wrong for black and white people to marry and have families."
it would definitely push my vote to the left in the next election.
Is that completely irrational?