Archives

Why a Primary shouldn’t be a Death Match.

Date: March 4, 2020
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Democrat Politics, Politics, Uncategorized
Comments: Leave a reply

For the past few months I’ve watched in horror as the Democratic primary has skidded off the rails into death cage match.  I tried to sound the alarm.  I can’t say in the past 28 years since I started to vote in National elections that I’ve seen anything quite like this race.  Social media and the explosion of outlets on the internet is part of the problem.  Voters can consume only the media that perfectly aligns with his or her point of view without ever seeing a differing opinion.  This creates echo chambers of political purity.  After a while political junkies start to view anyone who questions or even mildly criticizes their chosen candidate as a heretic who must be purified or destroyed.

A primary is supposed to be a scrimmage of people playing on the same team.  Some of the more passionate progressives didn’t realize that eviscerating another Democratic was a bad idea.  They didn’t anticipate that when that candidate dropped out of the race his or her supporters didn’t just disappear.  The doxxing, insults, harassment and threats wouldn’t be quickly forgotten.  A scrimmage is not supposed to result in broken bones and bloody head injuries.  The main source of this kind of extreme negative campaigning came from young, passionate Bernie Sanders supporters known as Bernie Bros.  Of course no campaign was completely free of this kind of toxicity but the overwhelming source of it came from supporters of the Democratic Socialist from Vermont. 

Tweets like these didn’t help.

I used a blurred version of the image because it depicts a scene from a movie of a teenage boy being sexually tortured by a group of men.  The person who tweeted it was Virgil Texas of the popular progressive podcast – Chapo Trap House.  Virgil Texas and his cohorts don’t work for the Sanders campaign directly but they are enthusiastic supporters.  Texas and his fans laughed off any claims of homophobia although the tweet is clearly hateful towards gay men.  Texas might have thought it was clever but it certainly wouldn’t win over any Buttigieg voters once he dropped out of the race.

This is just one out of many examples of self-defeating attempts to boost Sanders.  It doesn’t make sense to smear Pete viciously because his voters will vote for someone else doesn’t win the nomination.  A critique of Buttigieg’s policies, background or donor base would be much more productive.  A disgusting homophobic smear is not going to lure any Buttigieg voters to the Sanders camp.  It could also turn off supporters of other candidates.  

Images like this one were also celebrated as some kind of victory but in the end all they did was alienate supporters of those campaigns.

Again someone forgot to realize that new voter outreach was also part of the game.  Do images of bloody campaigns make supporters of Beto, Harris or Pete want to join the Grim Reaper?  I saw Sanders supporters gleefully repost this while supporters of other candidates saw this as proof of Bernie Bros’s toxicity.   

I’m pretty sure the image posted above is supposed to be satirical.  The underlying message is that if someone isn’t with Sanders and his mob they might find themselves at the wrong end of the guillotine.  Even if it’s meant as a joke the message is literally “Support Sanders or else.”  

I’m not sure why they thought they could bully their way to the top.  It’s just not how voting works.  They should have been trying to win over new people by selling the great and wonderful qualities of this man who made them so excited.  Most Sanders supporters did not engage in this type of behavior, but sadly the worst ones created an insular toxic clique that would only accept the purist supporters.  

I’ve compiled a short list of the worst trends on Twitter I’ve seen since this whole ordeal started that do the opposite of attracting new supporters.  

#1. The How Dare you not love my candidate.

 “If you don’t support my candidate then you obviously want people to die!  You just want people to die!  You want millions to get sick and die from climate change, never-ending wars, poverty, and the evils of giant corporations. 

It’s never occurred to a “How Dare You” ranter that someone might care a great deal about the same issues, they just think another candidate might have a better plan.

#2. The classic insult.

Anyone who doesn’t support my candidate is an idiot and a moron, I guess your brain doesn’t work.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

What is a person trying to accomplish with this one?  Do they want them to like their candidate or just feel bad about themselves?

#3. The insult you won’t even understand approach.

Well of course you wouldn’t like him/her you neoliberal corporatist, centrist, Democratic establishment, shill.

I mean what does half of that even mean?  

#4. I guess you can’t read.

Obviously my candidate has the best policies.  How do you not see it? 

Instead of scolding them, and acting like they are illiterate buffoons maybe try to sell the policies you love so much. 

#5. My candidate is a victim

Everyone is against my candidate.  The Democratic establishment wants him/her to lose.  The media is trying to stop them.   

I kinda get this one as the media isn’t always fair.  The DNC is less than perfect.  The problem is painting a candidate for president as a perpetual victim does not make that person look like a strong leader.  Trump uses this exact same tactic.  It works for a portion of the electorate but it also turns people off. 

#6 Gaslighting

I’ve heard about some supporters being abusive but I’ve never seen it myself.  It must be bots, fake accounts or some plot to make my candidate look bad.  

Just because you don’t see something personally doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. 

#7 The Threat

We will keep lists of anyone supporting that candidate.  We won’t forget who you are.  You will pay for this. 

An actual threat of death will usually motivate anyone to vote for whatever the person holding the gun wants, otherwise this is a losing strategy. 

#8 Some voters are just stupid 

Voters who did not vote for my candidate are low-information.  

Low information is just a fancy way of saying stupid.  It doesn’t help. 

#9 The abuser approach

You will be forced to vote for my candidate because it’s him/her or Trump.  When we win we laugh in your fucking face.  

Who wouldn’t want to vote for their candidate after getting a tweet like that?  

#10 The scorched earth

Your candidate is…

  • a racist
  • a Russian asset (Unless you’re Tulsi Gabbard) 
  • a looney toones
  • a child molester
  • a rapist
  • not really gay
  • a rat
  • a snake
  • a murderer
  • secretly working for the CIA
  • a Republican
  • a cop
  • the person who will bring on the end of the Democratic party
  • the person who will make sure Trump wins the election

Where did they learn this?  Is it the media? Angry podcasters that tap into entitlement and rage? Are these folks simply stuck in a sports team menality and don’t realize that they have to reach out and persuade others in order to build their base of support?  

Negative campaigning during a primary towards other Democrats and their supporters is counter-productive.  There is a reason we’ve never seen this type of extreme vitriol in the past – it simply doesn’t work.  The slings and arrows might silence people from speaking out but it doesn’t change their opinion.  If anything it makes the candidate the bullies are trying to build up look worse. 

Attacking a Republican is something else entirely, especially someone like Trump.  We will still face swing voters though who might not like Trump but won’t be swayed if someone calls them a murderer when they don’t support a vague plan for Medicare For All. 

Will this primary get any better?  I hope so but I’m not convinced that the worst actors in this mess have learned anything.  I fear that even if Sanders gets the nomination this type of behavior will continue or just get worse.  There are potentially millions of voters who voted for Trump in 2016 who don’t want to vote for him in 2020.  Our best bet at getting them on board with a Democratic nominee, whomever that person is, should be by selling our candidate in the best possible light.  The scorched earth tactics should be used against Trump, not moderates and independents and certainly not towards other Democrats.  

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Does it Feel Like 2016 All Over Again? One Thing Hasn't Changed – Bernie Sanders.

Date: January 21, 2020
Author: julietjeske
Categories: Democrat Politics, Politics, Social Media, Uncategorized
Comments: Leave a reply

I did not intend to write this piece about the Bernie Sanders campaign. When I started this experiment I honestly wanted to find out why this primary already feels divisive and toxic. In some ways we are re-living the traumas of the 2016 Democratic primary. I’m not going to rehash that horror show here, as it’s been dissected and picked apart down to the last smashed campaign button.

I wanted to find the source of this bad blood so I turned to the epicenter of online nastiness — Twitter. I realize searching for answers on Twitter has its limitations. Only a small percentage of voters even use the platform. Regardless the POTUS uses Twitter so often, his misspelled and grammatically challenged tweets often end up as top stories in the news cycle. He’s nearly started wars with his clumsy tirades.

I decided not to study the tweets of ardent supporters of any candidate. It’s simply too easy to fake an account on Twitter. A Republican or Russian could masquerade as a Democrat just to sow discord. Some folks create dozens of fake sock puppet accounts to make one person appear like several.

I figured it was better to look at what paid staffers were saying about each candidate and go from there. I selected the two positions that are the best representatives for voter outreach and public relations.

Director of Communications

National Press Secretary

In the cases where a campaign did not have anyone with those exact titles I made my best guess. For a 24 hour period roughly from the night of Sunday 1/19/20 to Monday 1/20/20 I tracked and cataloged 100 tweets from both staffers from the following campaigns — Sanders, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. I ended up reading and taking notes on 1000 tweets which were broken down into 10 spreadsheets.

I didn’t go into long thread or conversations. I simply scrolled down each account and made notes on everything they tweeted themselves or retweeted from another account. I marked a tweet as negative if it attacked another Democrat, the press or used the term centrist as a pejorative. Although many on the far left are no fans of centrists, four out of every 10 American voters identify as Independent. Many people proudly call themselves centrists as they are disgusted by both political parties. I did not include any attacks on Donald J. Trump as a negative tweet. Any negative tweet about President Trump was included in its own category.

Out of the ten staffers only one, Brihana Joy Gray of the Sanders campaign, repeatedly spewed negative vitriol at other Democrats, centrists and the media. The following is a breakdown of each campaign. I’m going to start with Bernie Sanders since his campaign is the only outlier.

Bernie Sanders

Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director – Arianna Jones – 97% positive, 3% negative including 2 tweets critical of President Trump. Biden was mentioned negatively three times. The media was also mildly criticized. Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang were mentioned favorably as was Chuck Schumer. Overall a mostly positive feed that retweeted Bernie Sanders often.

National Press Secretary – Briahna Joy Gray – 54% negative, 46% positive, with 2 tweets that were critical of President Trump. Roughly 15 tweets included the idea that the media was somehow being unfair to the Sanders campaign. The top tweet pinned to the top of her account was an attack on Joe Biden. Media targets included NYTimes, MSNBC, ABC News, PolitiFact, and Joy Ann Reid. Joe Biden was mentioned negatively 36 times, Elizabeth Warren 3 times, and Klobuchar 2 times. There were two tweets that used the term centrist negatively. Briahna Joy Gray also dedicated an entire episode of her podcast “Hear the Bern” to Biden’s Record. The actual title of the episode is called “Biden’s Record.” This episode was widely promoted in a series of tweets. Gray also retweeted David Sirota, Bernie Sanders speech writer, 14 times. In each tweet Sirota attacked Biden and Politifact. I did not do a deep dive on Sirota’s tweets because he didn’t fit the criteria I set up. It would be unfair to include Sirota since I didn’t track a speech writer of any other candidate. The overall tone of Gray’s tweets was that Bernie was under attack and Biden was enemy #1. One would almost think Biden was the current president and Trump didn’t even exist. Ironically Biden’s team went after Trump the most aggressively out of all 10 staffers I profiled.

Joe Biden

National Press Secretary – Jamal Brown – 97% positive, 3% negative with 9 tweets critical of President Trump. His negative tweets were directed at the media and Facebook. Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders were all mentioned favorably. Barack Obama and Julian Castro were also mentioned in a positive light. The most common theme repeated in his tweets was the support Biden among black voters.

Traveling National Press Secretary – Remi Yamamoto – 98% positive and 2% negative with 17 tweets critical of President Trump. Yamamoto also included an negative tweet about Lindsay Graham. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were mentioned in one tweet but the reference was neutral.

Pete Buttigieg

Director of Communications – Lis Smith – 99% positive 1% negative. The only negative tweet was a mild dig of the NYTimes editorial board not endorsing Buttigieg. No tweets about Trump. Her tweets were overwhelming positive and included the most humor out of the bunch. She did not mention any other Democratic candidates

National Press Secretary – Chris Meagher – 100% positive. No tweets about Trump. Mentioned Corey Booker twice in a favorable manner. This campaign was overall extremely positive and upbeat. Most of their tweets were of volunteers canvassing in Iowa and elsewhere. It was also Buttigieg’s birthday so there were a lot of Happy Birthday tweets.

Elizabeth Warren

Communications Director – Kristen Orthman – 96% positive 4% negative, 4 tweets about President Trump. Her negative tweets were directed at the media. She also used humor often. Mentioned Ayanna Pressley, Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Julian Castro and Andrew Yang. None of her comments or references to these Democrats were negative. Included two positive references to Bernie Sanders specifically.

Press Secretary – Gabrielle Farrell – 100% positive. Mentioned Julian Castro 3 times always in a favorable light.

Amy Klobuchar

Communications Director – Tim Hogan – 100% positive 2 tweets about President Trump. Included images from the service for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that included all of the Democratic candidates arm in arm. Mentioned Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren favorably. He also included some humorous tweets.

National Press Secretary – Carlie Waibel – 100% positive. No tweets about President Trump. Also mentioned Elizabeth Warren favorably. Included two images from the service for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with the Democratic candidates arm in arm. This account was almost identical to the Communications Director. Overall the Klobuchar staff members were the most positive followed by Pete Buttigieg.

Bernie Sanders can run his campaign however he sees fit. Some voters might view this caustic approach as aggressive or effective. The downside is of course that the scorched earth approach could cause tremendous damage to the rest of the Democratic field. At this point in time it’s highly likely that Bernie will not get the nomination. The vote is fairly evenly split into a 4-way race and the polls are changing by the day. If another candidate seizes the nomination how much damage will be done by this style of campaigning? Is their goal to beat Trump, or to win at all costs? Will this lead to another Bernie or Bust movement? Will disgruntled Sanders voters write in Bernie or pick a third party candidate? This also makes me wonder how much control Sanders has over his staffers. The other campaigns showed a strong sign of coordination between the Communications Director and the Press Secretary. On Sanders team these two women were polar opposites with their approach.

If you’re a huge Bernie Sanders supporter and you love the way his press secretary and staff approach their jobs on Twitter great. Maybe you think he’s not given a fair shake in the press and you loathe Joe Biden. There are still lots of undecided voters out there and voters who will switch allegiances as candidates drop out of the race. This overly harsh approach could drive new people away from the Sanders campaign. It does seem to be a bit of a paradox to offer hope and change while also tearing down other Democrats.

Ultimately it would take weeks and several people collecting evidence from every social media platform to make the best assessment. This cursory glance at Twitter was so lopsided I can’t help but think more research would reveal this style of campaigning also exists on Facebook, Instagram and elsewhere.

If you disagree with my findings I implore you to check it out for yourself. Each staff member’s name is hyperlinked to take you directly to his or her Twitter account. The negativity, at least on Twitter, is only coming from one direction and that’s the Sanders campaign.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page