Inspired by this post and the fact that I'm seeing a lot of regular libs start to coverage on "these guys are weird little freaks" as a messaging policy, which really seems to be bringing out the 
in the far right. It's working much better for them than all of Biden's attempts to portray Trump as some kind of existential threat to 
.
This is interesting, and only surprising in the sense that it is surprising to see the Democrats do something kind of effective for once. Fascists thrive on being seen as cool, powerful, and dangerous; those aesthetics are central to the brand. Every time Biden gave a big speech about how the future of democracy was on the line in the election, it played into that aesthetic. Every time CNN calls January 6 a "coup attempt," it plays into that aesthetic.
Calling these people weird little freaks with weird dumb ideas and weird creepy fixations does not play into that aesthetic. It breaks the illusion that all the freaks at the RNC wearing bandages on their ears are actually normal and represent normal people. They aren't, and they don't. This is yet another thing that the left has known for some time now, but that libs seem to maybe be catching on to: taking these idiots seriously empowers them. Actually realizing that and using it is one of the smarter things that the Dems have done in a while.
Nightmare scenario is that they pull a Hillary '16 and start funding the extra weird ones behind the scenes.
But yeah, calling them weird seems to really make them mad, at least for now.
I see it as entirely possible that they start to "own" being "weird" in the same way they did with "deplorable". Bigger lift, I think, since, like you said, so much of their brand relies on them being "the real America" or whatever, but I expect there will be "weird" merch at Trump rallies soon.
Yeah, I think it would be really tough for them to own it while also maintaining the rest of the rhetoric (and their ties to Trump). Trump is super weird--he just gets away with it, because he's actually pretty charismatic. I actually think Trump himself could own it and use it (he could lean into "weird" in the sense of "world-historical figure," which is how he wants to see himself), but most of his boosters couldn't handle it. They desperately want to hold on to the idea (and image) that they represent the silent majority; "weird" is incompatible with the whole "retvrn to tradition" presentation.
The rest of them are black holes of charisma though, so as long as they keep trying to be Trump without Trump's humor and charm, they're going to come across as off-putting. JD Vance is a prime example.
Nightmare scenario is that they pull a Hillary '16 and start funding the extra weird ones behind the scenes
They did this in the '22 midterm and from what I remember, it actually worked. The Q lady in Arizona and the dude in Pennsylvania that were running for governor for the Republicans got boosted by the Dems and the more people saw and heard how deranged they were, the worse they did. It can work, but if anyone could fuck it up spectacularly, it'd be the Democrats. Hell, Jamie Harrison is DNC chair now and the only thing he's done is burn a pile of money losing to Lindsay fucking Graham.
Idk, Portland holds claim to that ownership, wouldn’t trying to claim it align them a little too much with that city and all it’s hopelessly liberal vibes?
They may be stuck with creepy weird instead of cool weird.
Trump leans into it and starts leading a singalong version of Creep at his rallies
I hate that I do too. The whole "what the hell am I doing here? I don't belong here" line really reminds me of the time trump was telling those truckers if he could just drive away.
Oh they'd twist the lyrics to Trump saying "What the hell am I doing here?" And the audience chanting back "you tots belong here!"
I think the thing that works here is that it's a word right out of common parlance. Which is, I think, what worked against Clinton in 2016. "Deplorable" to most people is a five-dollar word. It's not something the average person says, it's not something the average person hears. Weird, however, is a word everyone has used before. It's common, and due to its common usage, everyone knows exactly what "weird" is to them. It conjures a predefined image born out of their social surroundings. Even right-wing chuds know other right-wing chuds they would consider "Weird".
If Trump tries to reclaim "weird", it will be, well, weird. I found some transcripts from his rallies, and tried replacing deplorable with weird, and it's not really hitting right.
Cincinnati Rally, August 1st, 2019
The conditions in Nancy Pelosi’s once great city of San Francisco are deplorable. They’re deplorable. Do you remember the word deplorable? Do you remember when Hillary used the deplorable? Deplorable was not a good day for Hillary.
The conditions in Nancy Pelosi’s once great city of San Francisco are weird. They’re weird. Do you remember the word weird? Do you remember when Hillary used the weird? [...] Weird was not a good day for Hillary.
"Do you remember the word deplorable?" I think, makes the case here that, even Trump understood the word was not common. He often brings up the word in this way, it seems, leading with "Do you remember ... ?"
Turning Point USA Teen Student Summit Speech, July 23, 2019
She said garbage. That’s worst than deplorable. Remember deplorable? Oh, yes, you do. Remember Hilary, the deplorables. She actually said a word that was worse. She said deplorables, and what was the second word? Irredeemables. That’s right. She said irredeemables. She said deplorables and irredeemables, and when she said it, I said, “Boy, that irredeemables is really a bad … ” Well, that was not the one. You never know in politics, right? It’s a tough business. You say a word, and you’re gone. One wrong word, you can make 20 great speeches, brilliant. They say, “He’s great, the greatest orator, the greatest orator of our times. He’s the great.” One word, and you’re gone, except for Trump because we represent you, because we represent you.
She said garbage. That’s worst than weird. Remember weird? Oh, yes, you do. Remember Hilary, the weirdos. She actually said a word that was worse. She said weird, and what was the second word? Irredeemables. That’s right. She said irredeemables. She said weirdos and irredeemables, and when she said it, I said, “Boy, that irredeemables is really a bad … ” Well, that was not the one. You never know in politics, right? It’s a tough business. You say a word, and you’re gone. One wrong word, you can make 20 great speeches, brilliant. They say, “He’s great, the greatest orator, the greatest orator of our times. He’s the great.” One word, and you’re gone, except for Trump because we represent you, because we represent you.
Looking back, it's pretty clear that the use of the word "deplorable" and, saying that some of these "deplorables" were "irredeemable", did a lot of damage to Clinton's campaign. Something she openly admits as well. It's possible that its usage could have lost her key votes that led to her losing the election. I think the usage really painted Clinton into an elitist box for voters.
Weird doesn't come off as elitist. Everyone knows someone they think is weird. Sometimes that weird is just, innocent, sometimes that weird is a small red flag. It doesn't draw a hard line in the sand, and from what I can tell it's not being followed up with stronger language in the way that "irredeemable" was. It's almost "playful", in a way that allows people to be "in" on the game. It allows people to be dismissive in a way that is almost disarming instead of combative. Again, I'm not sure if this is something organic being cooped, or if it's something workshopped. If it is workshopped, I think they're taking queues from 2016 and attempting to avoid what happened with deplorables.
The phrase Hillary used was "basket of deplorables", which doesn't sound like human speech. I think that was also something that she got consultants to think about too, and that's what they picked.
Absolutely. It's well outside the bounds of normal discourse. It showed just how out of touch she really was. That isn't to imply that the current dems are "in touch" with reality, but it does seem they're trying to align closer to it this time around.
This is a good read. The convention wisdom that it harmed her because it was too mean or somehow insulted working class people always felt like a shitty analysis to me.
Weird doesn't come off as elitist.
That right there is the key, I think. Great analysis. Even "deplorable" was the kind of thing that plays into the image of being powerful and dangerous. "Weird" is very pedestrian.
Yes, and it’s what they should’ve been doing all along. The civility politics was always a nonstarter, as was the pearl clutching about saving democracy. It’s just the dirtbag left zeitgeist, but now being done by dems 8 years after they should’ve started doing it.
I do think it only works though if you’re on top, and the dems have a lot of energy right now, while the gop seems to have had its wind knocked out of it with the Biden-Harris switch. If you aren’t already winning in the field of public opinion I think it mostly looks desperate, and fortunately for the dems public opinion has shifted in their favor. And also fortunately for the dems the far right has gotten weirder over the years. They were always weird, but back in 2016 there was an element of (reactionary) opposition to neoliberalism to them, which played well when going up against Hillary Clinton. These days they seem more focused on weird hangups about veganism and trans people.
The degree to which the Democrats actually got their shit together and even kind of took advantage of the momentum shift is really kind of astounding, and does make me think Harris has a good chance of winning. Biden's response after the assassination attempt--to pause all his advertising out of "respect"--is much more what I've come to expect from them. It's interesting to see them actually press an advantage for once, even if very mildly. It definitely makes Harris seem more "with it" than any major Democrat since Obama, which I think is a good strategy for them.
That's what it takes to win elections in the best democracy Coming up with insults (this is how trump beat Hillary) And how he beat Ron de santis
Setting up a 24/7 tequila bar stall with fake neon signage and inexplicable sports theming in the mar a lago living room
It also defangs the GOP attacks on Kamala, that she's kooky or w/e.
