**Interesting news out of Maine** - [oysterman and harbor master Graham Platner](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/graham-platner-oysterman-harbormaster-rural-maine-enters-race/story?id=124758156) jumps into the Senate race, dividing the Democratic establishment. He looks like central casting's not-terribly-progressive New Englander. Great voice, great story. Tattoos to prove it. (Moderate? [Probably not](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/democratic-senate-candidate-in-maine-claims-genocide-perpetrated-in-palestine/).) According to ABC: > *Platner has hired [Fight Agency](https://www.fight.agency), a Democratic consulting firm whose members have worked for Fetterman and Osborn's campaigns, as well as that of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York mayor.*  Osborn's another guy from central casting to represent the everyday Nebraskan Navy veterans, blue collar workers. He made an uncomfortably viable independent run against Deb Fischer last cycle; now back to take on Pete Ricketts. And, of course, Fetterman walks around like the guy you'd buttonhole to spot you at the gym. So, Fight's next act: Zohran Mamdani; moderate coded? ![[CarellOffice.gif]] --- Good luck with that - but Mamdani *can* go on Tiktok and say “them” a lot when blaming “*them*” for high rents or aggressive policing. Political aesthetics is about having the right enemies, first. No one disputes we're in a populist moment. No one disputes our politics are more visual than ever. Populists going Hollywood only makes sense. There is a reason the [Kennedy-Nixon debate](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics) “changed the world of politics.” Basic good looks have been an asset since. Reagan was ridiculed for his acting background, but it helped.  Clinton could [own a camera shot like no one before](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LhgGs4TrYA). Time was; the aesthetic codes that say "not too liberal" or "not too conservative" weren't ingrained. We had enough of a monoculture where Democrats still drank cheap beer. Republicans watched the same late night shows. Putting sunglasses on while playing a sax didn't make you liberal, per se. It made you cool. It put you on one side of a generational divide (Boomer vs WWII), which is maybe one natural genesis of our chasmic cultural divides today. Now, the visual clues are the text. You read them right up front, because otherwise you [[Voters don't read|don't read anything at all]]. --- When do good looks outpace name ID as a baseline metric for recruiting people to elective office? If a candidate doesn't need a rolodex, a trust fund, any original ideas, or the ability to write four paragraphs; is being good looking and mad at "them" sufficient?  If the printed word, the [[Five categories of political rhetoric|rhetorical argument]] , or any [[Institutional weakening is more evident in politics with each passing year|institutional prowess]] no longer order political outcomes; when do we start quantifying voice, behavior, and beauty as rigorously as any other metric or qualification? Are we already there?  Fight Agency seems to think so. Politico's Adam Wren lately referenced [[Post Literate Politics]] in the context of [Gavin Newsom's antics on X](https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1963444617493586253): >![[WrenPoliticoPostLiterate.png]] Digital Dojo... memetic jujitsu... get into the octagon... how quaint and dated does Clinton playing Arsenio Hall feel today? Wren's source has a great point, below the Presidential level. Underfunded Senate races in the ActBlue/WinRed era are few and far between. Crowdfunding isn't going away, and donors give strategically en masse. It helps to be a self-funder, but you can go find the money if you can find the attention. Anyone else notice Congress is getting notably better-looking? We even have debates about [eyelashes](https://youtu.be/Y-f0t5Wk0TA?feature=shared) in committee. The actual job of public office is increasingly fit for a failed-at-Hollywood influencer type. Most of the old institutionalists are [leaving](https://www.npr.org/2025/08/13/nx-s1-5495665/lawmakers-leaving-washington-run-for-governor-congress-2026-midterms). Cameras are everywhere, they mediate our experience of the world fully. We reward with money and attention the skills required to get the job, not do the job. Which will, eventually, change the job description. --- A counter argument to the above, and a point in favor of boring lawyers and state senators: faking authenticity is really hard. [Mamdani doesn't walk around NYC looking breezy fresh on instagram](https://www.instagram.com/zohrankmamdani/?hl=en). He has a background in film production. He has a light truck following him, and some great editors. [Osborn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbqWaEo_83s), when left to his own devices, [doesn't present well visually](https://youtu.be/rzfBvTIVrzY?feature=shared&t=34) Dude hunched over in a dark closet reads differently than dude out working hard for the people. To create images and sound that pass through a camera box, lens and screen and then read like normal human behavior takes an enormous amount of set-up and skill. It's a bit like a golf swing. [The great ones look effortless. They are not.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SHCb1XUuzI) A core challenge of political advertising is directing candidates. Corporate Lawyers usually aren't great at telling jokes. They aren't actors. A *perfectly-cast “not-politician”* might be the most effective strategy right now. But it takes a lot of good lighting and clean copy to look that authentic time and time again. Which is why consultants want to hire actors for the job. [[We aren't pundits]], but it's probably better for the Republic if we don't. > [!Us Doing Our Job] > ## This is what makes an 'authentic' spot look 'honest' > - Arranging an "un-staged shot" in a studio. > - Boom microphone to filter audio > - Directing the read to sound "unscripted." > > > ![[BTS SHM Ryan Directing.png]] > > It takes some effort to make [great ads](https://www.youtube.com/@stophoustonmurderspac8020/videos).