Comment by iamnothere
8 hours ago
Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative.
If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias.
But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.
All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look.
However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look.
The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President.
See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
Yeah nah this is way too reductive. You'd need to share a much more thorough analysis than just "here are three candidates criticized for things that are arguably adjacent to angry/negative vibes"
For example, Harris ran on a positivity campaign and lost.
There are just way, way too many dimensions to modern politics to resolve into something like this – with the exception of the anti-MAGA sentiment which is widespread, highly salient, and highly motivating. Obviously that's fleeting and so in 16 years it will probably be wrong to say "anti-MAGA candidates always win, just look at 2028!"
5 replies →