Podcast elections?

This isn’t the first time Democrats (or Republicans) have licked it. This is not the first time technology has been blamed.

Before rushing to fund solutions to the latest technological deficit, it is useful to consider the lessons that history teaches us.

I’m old enough to remember a real disaster: the 1994 midterm elections. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, turning 52 seats from blue to red. The Republican Party also gained eight seats in the Senate, a network of 10 governor’s seats, and a group of state legislatures.

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and commentators from across the political spectrum credited talk radio for the victory. “[W]”If it weren’t for talk radio…I don’t think we would have won,” he said.

In 1960, talk radio barely existed. Only two stations in the entire country offered talk formats.

By 1995, 1,130 radio stations devoted their programming to (primarily conservative) news and/or talk.

Between fifteen and 20 million Americans listened weekly to the format’s star, Rush Limbaugh, on 659 stations across the country.

After identifying the cause of the defeat and convincing Justice Louis Brandeis that the cure for evil speech was “more speech,” Democrats sought out the leftist Limbaugh and set about creating their own talk radio infrastructure.

You failed. Miserable.

Early attempts, hosted by former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, took less than two years each.

Comedy genius and future Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) worked with Rachel Maddow and others at a larger progressive radio network, Air America, which lasted only six years.

These and other talented hosts attracted audiences of 1-1.5 million compared to Limbo’s 15-20 million.

2000 was a less severe blow to Democrats, but still a big one. Despite winning the popular vote, Gore lost the Electoral College and the White House, while the Republican Party retained the House and Senate.

The main culprit? Fox News Channel, created by Rupert Murdoch in 1996.

By 2000, 17 percent of adults reported watching the station regularly. Academics using sophisticated methods have provided strong evidence that the conservative channel convinced between 3 and 8 percent of its viewers to vote Republican.

Fox also beats liberal and mainstream competitors in viewership. MSNBC averages 521,000 total daily viewers while CNN averages 367,000 viewers. But Fox now averages more than 2 million viewers a day.

That’s right, Fox attracts more than twice as many viewers as CNN and MSNBCtotal.

Last year, the technological villain was podcasters and online (mis)information.

Trump’s inner circle played up the role played by alternative media influencers, with Dana White, a friend of the president-elect and the CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, using his precious minutes on the microphone on election night to “thank members of the Nelk Boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, and Bussin’ With The.” . Boys, last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe Rogan.

“2024 will be remembered as the podcast election…” media director Steve Johnston concluded.

According to Edison Research, 100 million Americans listen to at least one podcast per week.

Three-quarters of listeners trust the public figures who host these programs, many of whom are sympathetic to Trump’s policies. By appearing on their shows, Trump appears to have gained their endorsement and connected directly with their fans.

Edison estimates that Trump appeared in podcasts reaching about 23.5 million Americans of voting age, while Kamala Harris appeared in podcasts reaching only 6.4 million.

Plans are already underway for progressive podcasts and new influencers.

But there’s a simple lesson underlying each of these vignettes: Whether the medium is radio, cable TV, or podcasts, it seems easier to build a conservative audience than a liberal one.

Part of the reason goes to the core of the messages from both parties. In 1995, Bob Shrum called talk radio the “grievance network.”

Those who are harmed outnumber those who are happy.

Historian Yuval Noah Harari writes that YouTube and Facebook’s algorithms detected the same pattern: “Anger increases anger.” [online] Participate while moderation tends not to.

Traditional conservative Republicans do not have the advantage of being angry over liberal Democrats. Boring politicians who conduct a substantive discussion about “issues” do not arouse anger.

But Trump’s grievance machine generates more anger than Democrats’ careful analyzes of plans and policies.

Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger has found that evoking positive (awe) or negative (anger or anxiety) emotions makes content more viral. The right is more emotional, the left is more analytical.

Berger also found that emotional fluctuations (switching emotional tones) lead to greater diffusion. Liberals have long dismissed Rush Limbaugh as a comedian, failing to understand that trafficking in comedy and anger was the secret to his success.

Never assume “if you build it, they will come.” It’s not just the medium or the message. Sometimes the public requires screening.

Mark Mellman is a pollster and president of the Mellman Group, a political consulting firm. He is also the head of the Democratic Majority of Israel.