Don't cross the streams

The right wing press is having an enjoyable day mocking the Kamala Harris speech.  Matt Margolis notes:

Kamala Harris’s speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night was apparently so underwhelming that the party couldn’t even find 30 people on livestream excited enough about her or her speech to cheer for her after she was done.

At the conclusion of Kamala’s speech, she turned to a large video wall off-stage displaying the livestreams of supporters clapping for her. It was an awkward moment that failed to capture the excitement and intensity of traditional conventions, but the Trump rapid response team discovered the real problem with it:

The problem?  Someone very quickly pointed out that there was a duplicate livestream.  Of the thirty livestreams of supporters, one was a duplicate.  The implication, easily drawn, was that they had fewer than 30 people in all of America watching Harris's speech and therefore had to duplicate one stream.

Another commenter notes that

Kamala’s applause live-stream was actually meant to be an accurate representation of 30 Democratic voters in New Jersey.

Apparently it wasn't that they couldn't get thirty viewers in the nation.  It was that they couldn't get 30 viewers in New Jersey.

Then people really began paying attention.  It wasn't just one livestream.  There were three duplicates out of the thirty.  Man, she really can't muster a crowd.

When I first saw all the mockery, I snickered.  Kind of funny.  But technical problems happen all the time. Surely this was just a snafu.  Then I saw there were multiple duplicates.  Still could be a technical snafu.   If you are running the video feeds, it can be pretty easy, particularly if there is a lot going on, to overlook an accidental duplicate.  But for ten percent of the feeds to be duplicates?  That stretches credulity.

It is virtually impossible to believe there were only thirty viewers.  The number of journalists in New Jersey has to be in the hundreds, presumably all Democrats.  It can't really be an issue of low viewership.

If we agree it cannot be the mockable presumption of low viewership, then how did this happen?

Finally, I notice the other thing which should stand out but which seems to have been lost in the hooting over the duplicates.  All the 30 feeds seem to be of women only.  And this is supposed to be a representative sample?

I am going to take the assertion off the table that this is supposed to be a representative sample.  I am also going to assume that it is not restricted to New Jersey.  I assume this must have been a managed and selected feed; you don't just randomly let people on the air.  People individually can be wonderful, but you get them together in groups and pretty soon you are beginning to discover how disconcertingly diverse behavior can get.

So I will assume this was a screened feed.  I will assume that there were lots of viewers.  I will also assume that the duplicates were a technical glitch.  

Now we are left with a different, and perhaps more disconcerting mystery.

Were only women watching Harris's speech?  I also can't believe that.

Someone at the DNC must have decided on some peculiar reasoning that they wanted to send the message that Harris is primarily there for the women's votes.  It seems a distasteful and insulting form of pandering.

Harris is only of interest to women voters?  Surely that is not their intended message.  Harris only cares about female voters!  That really can't be their message.  

What is going on?  Low viewership?  Can't believe that.  Technical carelessness?  Possible, but can't really see that is a viable explanation.  Deliberate messaging?  Conceivable.  But really?  Did no one think it might be a bad idea to forefront the idea that Harris is only on the ticket for women voters and/or only cares about women issues?

Particularly when Biden was trying to pitch a message of unity and collectiveness rather than divisiveness?

I am at a loss.  The mockery is barely amusing but it calls attention to a deeper issue.

I can only hypothesize that this was the product of a group bubble.

My long standing state House Representative has been an old style upper middle class female virtue signaling policy radical.  Her husband was a successful corporate lawyer who could indulge her hobby political career.  When meeting with her at events, she would mouth the words of tolerance and inclusion and respect, but if the conversation turned to suburban voters or church goers or the like, she was full of vitriol and repugnance.  She was quite open about her revulsion for the majority of the voters in the state.  She put it in partisan terms but it was not hard to feel like there was a lot of class derision, ignorance and simple disdain for anyone outside her gilded cage.

She stepped down this election due to health issues.  We had a chance for a new choice.  In the Democratic Primary we had a couple of viable candidates and a lot of unknowns simply casting their hats in the ring with a hope of hitting the jackpot by luck.

One candidate I knew well.  He had pretty much of a lock on the LGBT vote but there were questions as to the degree he could appeal outside the LGBT segment.  The other leading candidate was a younger woman, lawyer, very professional in appearance.  When she spoke, there was none of the poisonous contempt of her predecessor.  She made the rounds of neighborhood associations.  Seemed viable and presentable and possibly credible.  

I go to her website to check out her voting history and policy positions.  All women's wedge issues.  Abortion rights.  Need for tighter regulation against discrimination.  New programs for women voting.  New programs for women business leaders.  A few head-nod policies towards minorities.  And that was it.

If you were a male voter, there was nothing there that seemed inclusive.  If you were a religious voter, no inclusion.  If you were blue collar, nothing for you.  Even if you were a female voter, most of the policies looked like they were geared towards younger, college educated women, among the most protected and privileged classes of people.  Working class woman?  Nothing there for you.

Are these candidates bad people?  No.  But something in the process is driving them away from trying to appeal to all voters.  Something is making them ever more narrow in their appeal.  And there seems to be no self-awareness of just how selective that appeal is getting.  That's the bubble.

And I suspect that that is much of the explanation for the otherwise inexplicable Harris livestream debacle.

Or perhaps I am not seeing enough of the picture or dealing with some bad assumptions.

To end on a humorous note, I did enjoy this less partisan humor.

The DNC didn't listen to Egon Spengler. #DemConvention pic.twitter.com/riC683hpP5

— Matt Margolis 🇺🇸 (@mattmargolis) August 20, 2020