44
got elected in the first place, in large part, because of the gimmick, the novelty, the brand recognition. Sure, the bigotry and the crude barbarism appeal for chuds was there too, but that's what I'm worried about.
My concern is that description, including basically all of the above, has a lot of overlap with a lot of famous-for-being famous "influencer" grifters.
I can't help wondering if the red team vs blue team of the electoral future of Burgerland will be some shrieking game streamer chud (R) 
versus some cold-eyed rictus smiling "philanthropy" grifter (D) 
I ask if there's something I'm not thinking of that might push back against what looks like an inevitability, short of Giant Meteor 2024 or sufficient Cool Zone events.
The way a decent number of socialist govs do it is by banning public campaigning generally; the main way of accruing voters is by knowing people personally and being involved in the same orgs as them. Obviously people know who is on the ballot and people who know the person personally will know their positions/behaviour, but they can't pay for political ads, go on their own radio station and say "vote for me for a jar of milk on every shelf" etc etc. There is usually a public forum that everyone is encouraged to go to where you can ask the candidate directly questions. (this varies a bunch, but electioneering as a full time job/advertising position is substantially curtailed if not outright banned)
This will not happen in the US, if it does it is likely the US has stopped existing in its current state.
Also, I feel like UlyssesT knows this so this comment is mostly for other people curious about how socialist elections work.