Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
"The other part of the politics I think that people were fed up with was just the game's Democrats play in the guise of democracy. And like we're the ones who care about the people. We nobody elected Kamala. Just like nobody wanted Hillary in 2016." — [Speaker Unknown, likely reflecting a sentiment of voter dissatisfaction with candidate selection processes.]
"The difference between new media and legacy media is connection. The purpose of this podcast is to get people invest in our lives and then be along for that journey... The purpose of legacy media is to sell depression pills." — [Speaker Unknown, highlighting a perceived fundamental difference in audience engagement between media types.]
"I think the biggest reason why she lost is she didn't do a good enough job of showing that she will be changed. She didn't do that. That's the biggest. People aren't happy. And she's more of this. A lot more. They wanted to change president." — [Speaker Unknown, attributing the election loss to a failure to convey a message of change to voters.]
The podcast episode delves into a post-election analysis, framing the outcome as a decisive rejection of liberal politics and a demonstration of the shifting media landscape. Speakers suggest that voters were not necessarily enthralled by populist appeal but rather expressed dissatisfaction with the current Democratic leadership and their unaddressed concerns on issues like the economy and border security. A significant portion of the discussion highlights the power of new media, particularly podcasts, in fostering genuine connection with audiences, contrasting it with what is perceived as the detached or agenda-driven approach of legacy media. This shift in media consumption is seen as a critical factor in campaign success, with candidates who engage directly and authentically on platforms like podcasts potentially building stronger voter loyalty.
The conversation further explores the strategic missteps of certain campaigns, particularly the perceived lack of authentic engagement and accessibility by one candidate, who was criticized for avoiding certain platforms or conducting overly controlled interviews. The speakers debated whether legacy media is "done" or simply adapting, but agreed its singular influence is waning. The rise of direct communication channels allows for community building and a sense of shared journey, which is believed to be more impactful than traditional celebrity endorsement or media pundence. The analysis suggests that this new media paradigm is where future political engagement will be won or lost, emphasizing the importance of connection and transparency.
Finally, the episode touches on broader societal shifts, including the impact of cultural narratives, the role of influencers, and the potential for political change driven by those who feel left behind by traditional parties. The discussion acknowledges the complexities of voter motivation and the desire for change, suggesting that the ability to connect with people on a personal level, rather than through established media gatekeepers, will be paramount in future political landscapes.