Izbori u SAD, zvanični topik

Radagast wrote:

Gargantua wrote:nekoga možda zanima, ima ceo pdf:

Poceo sam da citam, i nije nesto. Tekstovi su prekratki, a ima ih i izrazito tupavih.

The emotional brand wins

Trump and Sanders built emotional brands that created deep loyalty, inspired customer evangelism and generated a high level of enthusiasm about voting for them.
...
If Sanders was the candidate of the future and the Revolution then Trump was the candidate of nostalgia and the Restoration. The Revolutionary and the Restorer both faced off against a candidate presenting herself as a continuation of the Obama legacy and upholder of the status quo. Hillary Clinton struggled in both contests. Her branding failed to motivate key Democratic audiences to vote. While stories were legion about the enthusiasm of the Sanders and Trump voters, Hillary Clinton struggled to build deep brand loyalty partly because of a lack of emotion that
went right down to the hashtag: #imwithher.
...
The lesson of the cycle appears to be that strong emotional branding and how to position a such a brand in light of market conditions are more important than clearly thought out policy positions, political experience, more sober values like competence or stability or winning debates.

=> Hilari izgubila ne zato sto je korumpirani zastupnik Vol Strita i neoliberalizma, kojih je Amerima pun kurac, nego zato sto joj kampanja nije izabrala najbolji hashtag.

zvezda je zivot wrote:otidite kod krugmana na tviter i pogledajte poslednjih 15 tvitova, mrzi me sve da kopiram

kvalitetna prsotina

Kinder Lad wrote:Pa dobro, nije odavno bio građanski rat.

ostap bender wrote:

Kinder Lad wrote:Pa dobro, nije odavno bio građanski rat.

amerika je zapravo u permanentnom stanju gradjanskog rata.

Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means, and Bakke was an engagement whose antecedents were at Gettysburg and Shiloh.

Jan-Werner Müller

The Populist Moment

Not everyone who criticises elites is a populist. Those who draw a lazy equivalence between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump fail to recognise that populists don’t stop at protesting against Wall Street or ‘globalism’. Rather, populists claim that they and they alone speak in the name of what they tend to call the ‘real people’ or the ‘silent majority’. This claim to a moral monopoly of representation has two consequences that are immediately deleterious for democracy.

They do not seek an open-ended process of citizens deliberating among themselves; when they call a referendum, it is only so that the people can confirm what they have already identified as the single authentic will of the people – which is itself a function of the populists’ symbolic construction of the real people. However, they demand that all intermediary powers are cut out, whether complicated party apparatuses or the professional media – mediation, in the eyes of populists and their followers, is distortion.

Liberals have been wringing their hands at their seeming inability to reach citizens with ‘fact-checks’ and incontrovertible demonstrations of Trump’s continual self-contradictions. It’s curious that in their despair they have resurrected some of the clichés of 19th-century mass psychology. While disputing virtually every claim made by populists – especially their supposedly simplistic policy solutions – they buy without question the story that populists sell about their own successes. When Arron Banks proclaims that ‘Facts don’t work … You’ve got to connect with people emotionally,’ they just nod. But it isn’t true that ‘the masses’ are emotional basket-cases ready to be seduced by a charismatic demagogue. For a start, the neat distinction between reason and emotion is misleading. People are angry for a reason, and usually they can articulate that reason, as part of a larger story about what went wrong in their lives. Trump gained some trust as an outsider and, even more, as a credible exemplar of what it means to be unprofessional in politics. Some trusted him because he told it like it is; but in other cases the trust came first, and led them to believe that he was telling them the real story. That story may have been a tissue of lies, but it was coherent, just as, in its own way, Farage’s narrative about English freedom and EU dictatorship was coherent. Once you’d accepted that story, the Treasury-approved ‘fact’ that British families were going to be £4000 a year worse off outside the EU took on a different meaning: who wouldn’t pay £4000 for freedom and democracy? ‘What convinces masses are not facts,’ Hannah Arendt said, not without the cultural pessimism about ordinary people characteristic of her time, ‘and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.’

The crucial thing to understand is that populists can govern as populists. It is naive to think that a protest movement is bound to fail in power since the protest cannot continue once the movement is in government. And it’s not necessarily the case that all populists, on account of their unworkable policy ideas, will be seen as failures. The wall might not get built – but that can be made to mean something other than the breaking of a campaign promise. Trump would merely need to convince enough people that it was the enemies of the nation – globalists, Democrats, former beauty queens, whatever – who prevented the practical realisation of the imperative of white self-protection. The supply of enemies is inexhaustible.