5
votes
Something has changed, and, thankfully, those trying to manipulate us haven't recognized it yet.
The one thing people didn't learn regarding Trump and is repeating itself with AOC.
When you consider a politician stupid, it actually empowers them to be crafty. I think Trump would love for you to think he is stupid.
When you constantly attack a politician, you actually give them more followers. It's strange, but the Streisand Effect is real, especially in this Internet era.
The biggest weapon in someone's arsenal is to actually just talk about what they are for. Not attack their opponent and give them press. The rules have changed.
This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.
I would love for some research to be done. But I think one can tell that AOC has spiraled to national stardom from negative attention, not positive exposure.
So at this point, it's just a hypothesis.
She spiraled to national stardom for her unrelenting refusal to back down on calling out, and actively fighting against, republican corruption. The only place I see "famous 'cause awful!" sentiment is Fox News, the same channel that went to court to fight to still be called "news" while deliberately spreading falsehoods.
The only people I see talking about her on my Facebook feed are people who follow Fox News. Except for that time she quoted Rorschach from the Watchmen. That got my geek friends talking about her. But my circle may not be comparable to others.
Even hypotheses require some sort of evidence and/or reasoning to back them up. You can't just make stuff up without something to support it.
I gave the evidence of the skyrocketing of AOC from a waitress to national political star.
And you then asserted that this happened because she was attacked. Do you have anything to prove this causality?
For starters...
How did those attacks lead to her gaining the Democrats' nomination in her state's primary? Her Wikipedia page says "Prior to defeating incumbent Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic primary, Ocasio-Cortez was given little airtime by most traditional news media outlets." So, what attacks were involved in her being nominated, and how did they help her win when she had "little airtime" devoted to her?
Then, how did those attacks lead to her getting elected to Congress? Again, her Wikipedia page says "Just before Ocasio-Cortez took office, Twitter user 'AnonymousQ' shared a Boston University student-produced dance video in which she briefly appeared, in an attempt to embarrass her." That attack happened after she was elected. So, what attacks helped her to win that election?
I don't see where the OP said that AOC won her election because of the fame/infamy she's received.
~heretohelp (don't mean to put words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong) only stated that she was being made famous by being attacked.
"The one thing people didn't learn regarding Trump and is repeating itself with AOC."
" I think one can tell that AOC has spiraled to national stardom from negative attention"
"I gave the evidence of the skyrocketing of AOC from a waitress to national political star."
She supposedly got "from a waitress to national political star" from negative attention. Parts of that journey are getting nominated and getting elected.
this is correct, generally speaking, but with that increase in followers, there is also an increase in backlash. i know who AOC is and so does most of america, and she is far and away one of the most effective politicians in america currently--she also polls worse approval wise than donald trump does, because she is quite radical and her particular brand of politics makes republicans and republican-leaners hate her. this cuts both ways.
with respect to this point, you are very much overestimating trump. he's not playing 4D chess or whatever, he's genuinely quite stupid and basically bumbled his way into where he is now through a mixture of luck and a media-savvy messaging team. he's a "savvy" politician insofar as he has a cult of personality that will uncritically listen to him (and those who critically follow him pretty much only like him to own the libs and realize he's actually pretty stupid and hollow) and he knows that, but that's where the buck stops. his advisers have always done most of the bidding for him and crafted the message that created that cult of personality. the moment you let him veer off of what people have made for him, you can tell he has no fucking idea what he's talking about and that his opinions are just opinions he's absorbed from people he likes.
He does do one thing well, and I think that was alluded to in Michael Cohen's testimony before the House. He said "He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code. And I understand the code, because I’ve been around him for a decade." Trump is great at not directly ordering people to do the things he wants done. When he wanted the investigation into Michael Flynn to be stopped, he called in James Comey, director of the FBI, and asked if he was loyal to Trump, and told him about what a good guy Flynn is. He was basically indirectly suggesting Comey end the investigation, as well as later suggesting he end the investigation into Russian influence in the election. He never does it directly; instead, he seems to live by a "plausible deniability" credo.
This thread didn't start out with much of a discussion and doesn't seem to be building into one either. I won't remove it, but I'll lock it so it's not continuing to bump back up (I'd like to have another option for accomplishing this, but it's all I've got for now).
Right, the one thing Trump never does is attack his opponents. He's always been known as a consistently positive, policy-focused candidate.