.svg)
With the inauguration behind us, it’s time to stop asking if the election represents an epochal political realignment and recognize instead that it was a strategic and tactical turning point. The 2024 Presidential campaign buried a mainstay of our political life for the past 50 plus years. It killed talking points.
Since the Kennedy-Nixon campaign cemented the power of television, the consensus has been clear. You want to get through to the distracted voter or consumer? Use simple messages. Repeat ad nauseam. During the Reagan years, Michael Deaver elevated it to an art with the Message of the Day, and ever since everyone who lacked the bully pulpit made sure each earned or paid media moment was tightly scripted. It led to the rise of talking points: three or four linked statements serving as the cornerstones of a political vision, policy plan or corporate commitments.
Does this tactic still work? In theory, it should. We’ve been told endlessly by academics and other concerned culture critics that Americans have gotten dumber: less educated, shorter attention spans, underinformed. Yet what just happened in the latest version of the most important election in history?
On the macro level, “MAGA” was a powerful slogan, and the most celebrated political ad was the stark contrast of “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.” So, simple powerful advertising remains valid. Yet below the surface, there was turmoil. Americans consumed information in new ways at scale, delivering our first post-talking points election.
First, algorithms mattered more than newsrooms and editors. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “88 of the 150 political TikTok Accounts in the US were content creators…Fifty-one were publishers like the New York Times…the rest were associated with candidates or political parties.” Translation: political consumers are relatively indifferent to mainstream media brands and engaged with relevant content the TikTok algorithm served up. And they liked it.
Second, long-form content took off, and podcasters became the new kingmakers. Trump’s interview on Joe Rogan earned over 33 million views—for a three-hour long unstructured discussion. In contrast, Harris’ under 30-minute interview on Fox News with Bret Baier only won 7.8 million views, per the Los Angeles Times and AdWeek.
Third, authenticity mattered most. While not reducible to a scientific principle, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, you know it when you see it. Practically, it translates into saying what you want without timidity or fear. It’s mojo that demands respect, and unfiltered social media and long-form podcasts made it easier for voters to sense this quality.
In retrospect, we can now see talking points are a tactic to push messages through the mainstream media—its highly structured and controlled formats (debates!) and its templatized narratives. In our new podcast and social media-driven news world, talking points are poorly designed for algorithmic distribution, don’t provide sufficient fuel for hour-plus podcasts and are the very opposite of authenticity. Whether or not the new algorithmic, free form, authentic media is an improvement is an open question. In the meantime, I’m going to mourn the death of my trusted old friend, talking points.
