![[Matter Header Twitter.png]] Two items, one read one listen; worth your time: ##### 1. How should campaigns spend their most precious resource? [David Plouffe’s NYT essay on how campaigns in 2026 and beyond should allocate their time](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/05/opinion/politics-midterms-tiktok-attention-content.html) is worth yours. ![[Plouffe NYT Time Allocation.png|400]] Now, argues Plouffe, creating consumable digital media *is* the fulcrum factor in allocating a candidate’s time. He must have been reading [[Recruiting... or Casting]]. Fair enough, and well put. Where do we quibble? Several places: 1. Most candidates aren’t good at being social media stars. (And Plouffe acknowledges this. It’s a selection bias in favor of the types of skills that don’t equate with running a budget hearing.) 2. It’s a lot of work to look spontaneous on camera. 3. It’s hard to look good or normal going viciously negative on opponents in a social setting. 4. Super PACs aren’t supposed to be able to coordinate your schedule (that’s a limit worth pushing, that has been/will be pushed) And the biggest ~~quibbles~~ objections: 1. Most political content is boring; and will lose out in feeds to cat videos. 2. Most people whom most candidates most need to consume political content **don’t want to consume political content**. They want to watch cat videos and need 9 reminders to vote. ##### 2. Campaign Trend Podcast on the Influencer-Candidate (weakening) boundary Friend of The Matter, [[Eric Wilson|Eric Wilson's]] [must-listen podcast ‘Campaign Trends’](https://campaigntrend.com/build-vs-borrow-how-candidates-are-rewriting-the-rules-of-political-influence/?ref=podcast-newsletter) features Doug Usher in a thorough discussion on the nature of performative politics in the age of attention. Key nuggets: - Non-spoiler take: Doug and Eric are making the back-door case for advertising... as cool as a framework as making your own audience is; there's maybe 10 political figures in America - *maybe* - who can do it. **For Now**. Which gets directly to [[Recruiting... or Casting]] - We endorse everything Doug said about [[Institutional weakening is more evident in politics with each passing year|institutional weakening]]. Again; go listen. Moderate candidates need mediating institutions. "The things that get attention online are either extreme or extremely compelling." Ossified institutions who want to leverage the power of the crowd online? Yeah... they're never going to get stakeholders to be "extreme" or "extremely interesting". They need advertising, and we suspect the platforms, business models and all, will accommodate as they grow. - *"Make me a viral video" - you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. There's no ingredients to virality - that's why it's viral.* If we could control virality; we wouldn't all have taken 2020 off. - Are coalitions different than algorithmic followership? Yes; yes they are. The former is the strategic game in advocacy. The latter is a point of tactical leverage. ![[Franklin and Screen.webp|600]] #### Where does the dialogue of "build vs leverage" leave most campaign practitioners? Both Plouffe and Wilson/Usher are making the same point in different ways: the [[Attention Economy]] demands thinking of politics as first modulated through a screen, and secondly in “meat space.” It’s an inversion for how this game has been played since its inception. That's important for all campaigns, because it is a calculus that applies to all voters. You don't hear about a candidate for the first time when you stop by the union hall and shake hands. You hear about a candidate when he interrupts your sports betting app. The problem of creating media hasn’t been a scheduling or logistics problem for candidates, beyond a couple of days' time, since campaigning began. Now it's what campaigning is, at the highest levels. Running for President or a high profile Senate race is a daily content game. Running for an office where the ActBlue crowd’s content demands must be fed to meet cash flow demands is a daily content game. Running for a high profile Senate seat of large-state Governorship is a daily content game. Note well, as Plouffe does: **this is not the same thing as making dash cam iPhone videos about tax policy. These followership-building campaigns have serious pros behind them.** And probably light trucks. Running for basically any other office? That’s a content game that people ***should be wise to plan and execute carefully.*** - Work hard with people who know how to not be boring - Don’t try to be funny unless you’re actually funny. - Repeat a few simple messages to get penetration - Don’t rely on an algorithm for content distribution - “Make this go viral” is for suckers It may not be possible to get elected president anymore without being, well, a skilled attention whore. But it's still possible to find success almost anywhere lower on the ballot. As Plouffe laments this likely is not good news for the Republic. But it ain't bad for business.