Gen Z influencers who supported Biden in 2020 turn against him : progressivepolitics

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They're not "turning against him"...

They're just not offering unconditional support, and if they don't do that Biden doesn't want them.

Which is his main problem with younger voters. He doesn't want to work with voters, he wants voters to work for him.

“I have noticed that there have been a lot more events with creators, but the creators that are getting invited are the creators who are very pro Biden and just parroting talking points or sharing photo ops of them smiling with the President. Not the creators who have been critical,” said Kahlil Greene, a history content creator and education advocate in Washington who said he hasn’t been invited to the White House since he criticized the administration over the TikTok ban and the war in Gaza.

Annie Wu Henry, a political influencer and digital strategist who has worked on Democratic campaigns, agreed. While the White House once treated creators as independent media, she said, they now seem to be playing favorites.

Biden’s team “is trying to say that they’re handling influencers like the press. But the thing is, the press briefing room has to have Fox News no matter what. They have to allow all of the media in,” Henry said. “When it comes to influencers, they only let in people who agree, and anyone who gives even a little bit of pushback is not welcome.”

If Biden isn't seeing the support this time, it's not the fault of influencers, it's his fault for ignoring anyone that's not just kissing his ring.

Same issue Hillary had.

Quick edit:

All he has to do is keep inviting the ones who are vocal about their concerns and open a dialog.

Even if he doesn't change stances, it's a hell of a lot better than surrounding himself with "yes men".

It's a very easy path forward, but it involves admitting people a quarter of his age have valid points. That's hard for an 82 year old.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

I do agree that it's not the fault of influencers, but of the campaign itself.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Biden is not a populist who panders to everyone just to disappoint more than half of them. He has positions which he holds and an administration working towards them. You can either agree with the direction or not. Someone may not be thrilled about having a choice between two candidates, but that's reality and nobody's gonna game it by not voting, so pick an issue and decide is Biden going to be better or worse than Trump? Unless their a nazi or indoctrinated Christian nationalist, 99% of the time gen z should come to the logical conclusion.

Edit: IMO Biden has been the most progressive Democratic Presidents in a long time

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Biden is not a populist

Since when is representing the people who elected you a bad thing?

And why do people who think that, think voters will turn out for someone that doesn't represent what they want?

Edit: IMO Biden has been the most progressive Democratic Presidents in a long time

That's not an opinion, it's a factual incorrect statement

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I'm open to your, obviously, well researched factual response to who is a more progressive President.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

So you make a ridiculous claim, get called on it, and then demand the other person prove you're wrong?

The way this works is you prove your own claim before you demand others refute it.

Why would they put the time in if you won't?

Like, you need to realize you're asking someone to explain something for your benefit. If the other person just stops replying, you lose because you didn't learn anything

At least ask politely dawg...

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

There are many things, but I think that H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act and the fact that he didn't just sign it into law, he had a major event as a signing ceremony on the White House lawn to highlight it, is a great example of the kind of President he has been.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/12/13/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-at-signing-of-h-r-8404-the-respect-for-marriage-act/

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

H.R. 8404

So...

HR means it's a bill that started in the House...

And Biden has been very open the last four years about how a politicians view is their view and he can't even change someone's if they belong to his own party.

So, and I'm just making sure here, you think Joe Biden is so progressive because he checks notes didn't veto it?

And instead he threw a big event and took credit for others peoples work?

C'mon man, was that really the best you found?

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

He didn't take credit, he actually detailed a lot of the credit due in his speech. But yes, it is the fact that he made a big deal about a progressive social issue that is an example of being more progressive than his predecessors. If you are looking for progressive things done without congressional action, you're not going to find any, ever. That's just not how our government works.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Oh is this one of those things where a Biden supporter tries to convince people that.

The president is completely powerless
trump becoming president would be terrible, so we have to vote Biden

Cuz buddy, not being trump is pretty much the only reason people are voting Biden, because 1 is bullshit

But we'd have a lot better chance beating trump with a president whose ambitions are higher than not dying in office.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Not powerless, but the fear of Trump (IMO a founded fear) is that he would abuse the office and be permitted to do so by his party members in Congress. I understand that people want Biden to do the same thing (for a real and good cause) but that would also be the end of American democracy.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

He is doing the same thing...

He's getting sued by the ACLU for illegal border policy, and breaking US and international law by supplying munitions for Israel's genocide...

Which is the whole point:

If the most popular reason to vote Joe is he's not trump, then Joe needs to stop fucking breaking serious laws, especially when he's doing it for things only republicans want

Shits not complicated, I hope some of this making sens.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Biden has been the most progressive Democratic Presidents in a long time

I am so fucking sick and tired of this talking point. You really need to stop parroting that bullshit.

I'm going to vote for Biden. I'm going to tell everyone I know to vote for Biden. I'm going to have lawn signs and participate in local voter drives, because I want Biden to win.

But he is not progressive enough. Comparing him to previous presidents it the least convincing argument you could possibly make. It's offensive. He's more progressive than Trump? Fuck you.

Our presidents, our government, have been controlled by kleptocrats and oligarchs for as long as any of us have been alive, and all of us are suffering because of it. Our world is dying, our futures have been mortgaged, and our economy actively works to enslave us.

We have never had a progressive president or a progressive government, so it's like you're saying "Biden is the softest kick in the nuts we've had in a long time."

Yeah, ok, maybe you're right. Are we supposed to be grateful? Go fuck yourself.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think you overstate what a President can do to say that Biden could do more.

Ps. No need to be so confrontational. Go fuck a moose ;)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Biden isn't just a president, though. He's a (presumably the most) influential leader in his respective party. he sets the policy direction for the entire DNC. "hey, The environment is an existential threat that will destroy our entire world and at the very least reshape society as we know it" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a president and party-leader to do.

Because, you know, failing to meet the climate crisis... well, we're not looking at the collapse of the US, or even global society. We're looking at the extinction of the human race. but the best he can do is subsidize EV's and solar panels. WOOOO. Literally every other crisis we're looking at- inflation, housing, safe water access, increased severity and frequency of storms and wildfires and other natural disasters, increased infectious disease, the immigration/migrant/asylum crisis, global conflicts, political extremism. ALL OF IT... will be exacerbated by climate change; and already is.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Good news then his administration has been on point for the messaging

Today — today, I’m proud to announce that my administration just released the Fifth Climate Assessment in our nation’s history.

It didn’t just come out of thin air. Written over four years, 750 authors and experts, thousands — thousands of American contributors from every single state in the nation as well as several territories and Tribes.

It’s the most comprehensive assessment on [the] state [of] climate change in the history of America. And it matters.

This assessment shows us in clear scientific terms that climate change is impacting all regions, all sectors of the United States — not just some, all.

It shows that communities across America are taking more action than ever to reduce climate risks and warns that more action is still badly needed.

We can’t be complacent. Let me say that again: We can’t be complacent. We have to keep going.

Above all, it shows us that climate action offers an opportunity for the nation to come together and do some really big things.

You know, I’ve seen firsthand what the reports made clear: the devastating toll of climate change and its existential threat to all of us. And it is the ultimate threat to humanity: climate change.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/11/14/remarks-by-president-biden-on-actions-to-address-the-climate-crisis/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-catalyze-global-climate-action-through-the-major-economies-forum-on-energy-and-climate/

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Great.

Now maybe we should stop new oil drilling, and cut back on oil exports as much as we reasonably can?

Maybe we should stop subsidizing oil.

maybe we should start funding public transit options, including busing, light rail, and regional high speed passenger rail. Maybe we should stop wasting money helping millionaires with beach front property rebuild and instead buy them out and create coastal wetlands, and protect inland wetlands better (and manage them during flood events.)

maybe we should invest in protecting barrier reefs, which help diminish the impact of storms, and

Maybe we should mandate environmental impact reporting for publicly traded companies. (and lets just ad social reporting, too. cuz why not?)

maybe we should make sure people have livable wages so that they can afford to invest in climate resilience so they don't become a burden after a catastrophe, and fight arbitary increases in costs so that people can afford to buy local and healthy food... supporting small farmers rather than giant AG corps that blow out more greenhouse emissions just checking on the crops than I do in a month.

perhaps, we should look into a sustainable carbon neutral military, because you know, a sustainable military is part of national security....

maybe we should invest in helping other countries get off oil, too.

Biden can't or won't do what's necessary to get us out of this mess. His messaging might be on point, but his actions aren't.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You are right, Biden can't do what is necessary as President. He can only do what is legally within his purvue, Congress would need to pass laws to do most of what you mentioned above.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

What he can do that he is not is pushing congress to do so.

Saying that he’s powerless is a cop out. He’s not powerless and you missed the part where I explained how he’s not just POTUS.

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Apparently you missed the part where he is a leading voice in a drive to deal with climate change and calls it an existential threat to humanity, uses the powers available him to pursue research and proposes monumental investments to deal with it. Do those investments line up with every one of your points, maybe not, but I'm certain that far more informed individuals than we will be in the rooms to debate which are more deserving and workable. But all of that is entirely dependent on legislative action. It is simple to do a cursory search of White House press releases to see what executive actions the Biden administration has taken, and they are not few.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 week ago

I dunno. I think his admin turned on them. Supporting a ban on a media platform that a lot of them want to use to be famous and make money. Supporting police brutality against peaceful protesters. Supporting immigration legislation that's far from that on which he ran. Hrm. Who turned on who?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

I think his admin turned on them.

Bullshit. This administration has done more for GenZ and beyond than the last three republiQan administrations combined

Is it everything and a giant bag of money? No. That’s not a thing. And any whining about having a privacy-mangling app being “taken away” is ridiculous. To be famous?? O Noes the BiDeN took away their famousnesses?? Teh harror.

And Feds do not micromanage local cop overreactions to protests. And if you think this administration is anywhere close to the political alternative to that, you’re more than wrong.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

And any whining about having a privacy-mangling app being “taken away” is ridiculous

the tiktok ban isn't about privacy. You can tell that because every other social media app is just as atrocious as tiktok (and in fact, selling that same data to the CCP, too.)

you know that, but it doesn't suit your narrative so you ignore it. the tiktok ban was performative bullshit and we all know it.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

and in fact, selling that same data to the CCP, too.

Prove it or admit you’re just making shit up. What, you got a sizzling hot redstate.com article? A four-hour podcast with Bill and Jackie? A guy you know from the thing with the stuff? I’m looking for a properly sourced article, not a youtube playlist or “feels”.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t buying it

And if you think that has stopped the sale of your data to the CCP…. lol….

Here’s some more info,

And some more

wow, even more!

I can do this all day….

It’s almost like you’re the one just making shit up and watching podcasts while insulting people.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t buying it

That’s data brokers. You said social media apps ALL do the same thing. That is not the same thing. Do we need to break that down, or you wanna die on this hill?

Here’s some more info,

The only social media app mentioned in this article is TikTok, lol. Good, uh, try i guess? Unless you’re back to data brokers, which - again, is a different argument. Related, sure, relevant, yes, but your claim that ALL social media apps share data with the CCP just as bad as TikTok is not supported by that argument.

And some more

TikTok (again) and Facebook. Okay. Hey - they wanna ban facebook, I’m all about it. Let’s do this.

wow, even more!

Facebook again. I mean, fair point, facebook is just as bad as tiktok (exception noted below). But that’s still not “ALL social media is just as bad as TikTok”, that’s just facebook. Facebook is the hitler of social-media-is-bad discussion. I’ll totally concede that one.

I can do this all day….

Google, Apple, Microsoft . . . All as bad as TikTok? No. Rejecting this one. I bet you could find articles about selling data all day. Doesn’t support your point.

It’s almost like you’re the one just making shit up and watching podcasts while insulting people.

I thought people listened to podcasts. Do they watch them too? Weird, but whatever. So, look, i’m on board with shutting down data brokers and all like that, but you’re saying that TikTok us no different from, what? Gmail? Teams? Signal? No. You’re wrong.

Here’s one reason. Because access to audio and video is essentially required, tiktok is inherently more dangerous than some other fascist spewholes like Xitter. The fact that the data is slurped directly into the CCP (let’s just make that a given, unless you disagree) means it’s already more valuable and useful than data-broker data for the reasons that the data broker would have to follow certain laws, it would cost a lot of money for a billion people’s data constantly, and they'd still have to put it together with what they already have which is fine if it’s name and address, but after that it gets super hairy super quick.

So no - they’re not all as bad as TikTok.

[-] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 week ago

People scream and demand grubbermint protection, they get it and then they get upset. It's all normal. China isn't to be trusted with electronics. Sad that the genz whatever who can barely understand computers can't have a basic grasp that a foreign government doesn't have their best interests at heart.

[-] gila@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Gen Z simply recognises that they've been priced out of their local digital monopolies, while their own government colludes with big tech to protect the extraction of digital rents from anyone trying to use their platforms as a market. Whether or not China has their best interests at heart, they are providing the only popular digital platform that can still be described as being anything like a free market.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

What angers her is the president’s failure to engage with Gen Z influencers’ substantive concerns, she said — though she acknowledged that the White House climate office recently contacted her directly regarding a pause in the approval of new liquefied natural gas projects.

“I prefer having a meaty climate strategy conversation

I think that's the most important takeaway here. We're not used to having to get deeply into the weeds with public outreach, it's frankly discouraged in the traditional media ecosystem where preference is to boil things down into simpler, easier to understand talking points.

That's not the way the modern information ecosystem operates though, there's no longer the same degree of profit motive and ensuing oversimplification. This is the wikipedia rabbit hole generation, density is often welcome.

This problem is highlighted earlier in the article where they mention not knowing if content creators are more like traditional journalists, or its more just about pay for views. The answer is its both, plus more on top. Some are academically inclined, some are organizationally inclined, some are propaganda, some are journalism, etc etc.

So, the team moving forward is going to need more than one singular, unified method for its outreach, and is going to need more of a shotgun approach that can accommodate differently-motivated creators with different methods and mindsets.

[-] flicker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I mean I'm glad that current generations want more. I hope they can drag discourse to where it should be!

But I agree that there's definitely a disconnect on what's been expected from a campaign, up until now.

Historically, campaigns are just one dude and his apparatus shouting their thoughts. A campaign isn't a conversation. It should be. Honestly I wish we. could securely run a platform of "every single one of our choices will be a poll online for a month beforehand."

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I disagree a little bit. I think townhalls are an example of a dialogue between a candidate and their constituency, and used to have a bigger role before broadcast technology was invented, so, most of our history. It's also a core concept in democracy for the leadership to pay heed to the voters wishes.

The disconnect I see is in communication, where the campaign has struggled to explain the reasoning behind its decisions. I think the easiest remedy would be to tap more of the administration's experts. Instead of trying to boil down the Gazan situation to soundbites, the administration could simply tap some of the policy wonks from the State Dept. Take one of the analysts that specializes in Middle East affairs and be like "okay, so, can you go talk to so-and-so for this afternoon and give them the rundown on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and our strategy? thanks Bob." Not really Bob's job of course, but it needs to be done. This would be instead of relying on any pre-existing communications experts. The influencer is a communications expert, they lack the policy expertise perspective, which is largely unavailable to most everyday citizens.

Progressive Politics