Have you ever wondered about the meticulous strategies that construct a political campaign's narrative or how those same principles apply to our daily dialogues on societal issues? Join me, Jennifer Furlong, as I engage with Matt Krayton from Publitics, unveiling the threads that connect personal history to political prowess. Our in-depth conversation traverses Matt's transition from history buff to political consultant, providing a rare glimpse into the delicate art of political communication.
Politics isn't just for the boomer generation anymore, and this episode doesn't shy away from tackling the critical task of relating to young voters. We dissect the importance of political participation across generations, acknowledging the evolving role of technology and the unique challenges it presents. As we analyze the intricacies of political expression and the pitfalls of mass communication, the conversation illuminates how empathy and respect are not mere niceties, but essential tools for navigating increasingly contentious political landscapes.
Wrapping up, we confront the contentious role of media in crafting political narratives amidst a divided political scene. Matt joins us to offer expert insights on steering through the news cycle with a critical eye, emphasizing the need for credible sources and diverse viewpoints. Our discussion underscores the strategic considerations when dealing with media across platforms, and we explore the essential balance between maintaining democratic integrity and connecting with voters. Tune in for a comprehensive discourse that delivers not only analysis but actionable strategies for more effective democratic engagement.
Click here to learn more about conflict management: https://amzn.to/4cdDmO9
Start for FREE
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Click here and become an Insider and get a special shout-out on a future episode!
Please leave a review on Apple Podcasts.
Order your copy of "Cracking the Rich Code" today! Use code 'PODCAST' and get 20% off at checkout.
Join The Rich Code Club and take your business and life to the next level! Click here.
Are you a podcast host looking for a great guest or a guest looking for a great podcast? Join PodMatch! Click here.
Host a live stream, record an episode, deliver a webinar, and stream it all to multiple social media platforms! Try StreamYard today for free! Click here.
Record and edit your podcast episodes with the easiest-to-use drag-and-drop tools available! Try Alitu today! Click here.
Join Innovation Women today! Click here.
As an affiliate, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I cannot think of a better way to kick off season
four than with an interview withsomeone who has not only seen
behind the curtain, but has beenan active participant in
creating what goes on behind thecurtain in political campaigns.
This past summer, in 2023, Ihad the honor of interviewing
Matt Crayton, the founder ofPublitex.
(00:20):
Now, if you're not familiarwith Publitex, they provide
media and political consultingto candidates from the local to
federal levels all over thecountry.
In addition to working withpolitical candidates, they've
also worked with PACs andindustry groups and corporate
clients to navigate thepolitical landscape, and in 2020
, matt helped create PresidentJoe Biden's viral we Just Did
(00:45):
Hat.
I think it's important to notehere that, although Matt and I
don't share the same politicalideologies, we do share an
understanding that effectivecommunication is of the utmost
importance, not only in thepolitical sphere, but also to
how we communicate with oneanother about the critical
topics of the day and how we goabout getting our information
(01:10):
and why all of this is crucialto our democracy.
I really enjoyed thisconversation with Matt, and I'm
sure you will too.
Let's go Welcome to theCommunication 24-7 podcast,
where we communicate about howwe communicate.
(01:32):
I'm your host, jennifer Furlong.
I have a special treat today.
I'm super excited about today'sguest.
Now.
Those of you who are longtimelisteners, you know that my
(01:55):
daytime job as a media analyst.
I really get into the politicsof things.
I'm fascinated by how wecommunicate about politics, how
it impacts, how we communicatewith one another just being a
consumer of communication and soa very important aspect of that
is campaigning, and I am sothrilled to be able to say that
(02:18):
I have an expert with me todayin political communication.
Matt Craton is founder ofPublitex.
It's a strategy firm really forpoliticians well, anything, I
guess, related to politics.
So we're going to listen toMatt explain a little bit about
what he does with his firm, butthen, after we get to know him a
(02:42):
little better, I want to dokind of a deep dive Into just
how are things going in ourworld today and what are some
strategies that maybe you and Ican learn from Matt so that we
can have better, more meaningfulconversations about some of the
more difficult topics thatwe're having to grapple with in
(03:03):
our society today.
So, matt, thank you so much forbeing on the show.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Thank you for having me on Jen, Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That was kind of a really quick, really broad.
Here's Matt, and this is whathe's doing today.
Would you mind just introducingyourself to the listeners and
letting them know exactly whatis Publitex and what kind of
relationship to the politicalsphere do you have?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Sure, absolutely so.
Publitex is a full service PR,public affairs and political
consulting firm and, as younoted, we focus a lot and think
a lot about strategy, both forour political clients, nonprofit
clients, and then things that Ilike to call political adjacent
, which is almost everythingthese days.
(03:50):
Everything is almost politicaladjacent, so we provide a
variety of services for ourclients, but cut our teeth in
the political world.
So I started back in 2011 bymyself solo practitioner, poking
(04:11):
around for whatever campaignwould hire me at that point.
So I was a fresh out of gradschool, had no idea what I was
going to do.
I had a job, didn't love it andI was like well, I've always
liked politics, so let's trythis, and luckily, it's worked
out over the years.
So I've been doing campaignsever since, and that's really
(04:33):
where I developed mycommunication skills and some of
the things that we bring to ourclients.
Even in other sectors, you canlearn a lot from political
campaigns, both what to do andwhat not to do.
And then in 2014, I brought ona partner and we've been growing
ever since, so he's also apolitical consultant as well.
(04:59):
So he had traveled the countrymanaging campaigns from the
federal level on down.
So that's sort of how we gotour start, and now we're still
doing a lot of campaign work,but then, like I said, we're
also doing a lot of work in sortof the political sphere and
then also corporatecommunications as well.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That's fantastic.
So what were you like as a kid?
Were you always into politics,or was this just something that
developed later on?
Speaker 2 (05:27):
That's an interesting question.
So what was I like as a kid?
I wasn't into politics per se.
I didn't grow up in, I think,what you would consider to be
like a hyper political familyand in fact I kind of ended up
on the opposite side of thespectrum of most of my family
(05:48):
though there's been someshuffling in recent years, as
has been in a lot of differentfamilies, but I always did have
this interest in history.
So I was very lucky from ayoung age that my grandparents
in particular helped me kind ofnurture that interest in history
(06:09):
.
So for some reason I really gotinto like the Civil War era
type stuff.
So they took me on severaltrips to tour the battlefields
and learn all about that stuff.
So I always had this interestin history and how governments
worked and then ultimatelytranslated, I might say like in
high school, like I wasinterested in politics, paying
(06:30):
attention, but again not like areally hyper partisan person,
not someone that was payingsuper close attention other than
reading the headlines and kindof consuming the news and
politics.
That way In college definitelybecame more politically active
and tried to learn.
(06:51):
So I minored in politicalscience, majored in history,
which I guess was inevitable.
I was actually my path.
I was on a path to be a historyteacher, actually a social
studies teacher.
So that was my thought leavinghigh school, getting into
college.
I like teaching, like history,like what can you even do with
this?
So he's like, oh, I can teach.
So did that whole thing, wentthrough my undergrad, did a
(07:15):
master's degree in education andthen 2008 came along.
Economy melted down.
I graduated in 2010 fromundergrad, 2011 from grad school
, and there were no jobs forteachers, especially history
teachers.
So that's where I was like kindof stuck and I was like all
(07:37):
right, well, I have this degreeand I've developed this interest
.
And in grad school too, Iactually had the opportunity to
work for a public opinionpolling institute at the
university that I was at.
So I got to kind of experiencefirsthand how people put
together polls how you gaugepublic.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That was fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, it was fascinating, especially like the
mechanics of it because, likeyou always buy until you're,
like, really paying attention,you don't really appreciate,
like all of the work andintricacies that go into it and,
honestly, all of the challengesnow today which at that point
even it would have been hard toimagine the world that we're in
(08:19):
today from just the puredifficulty of measuring public
opinion on any given issue, letalone the horse race of a
political campaign.
So that was really fascinatingbecause we got to kind of dig
into issues and sort of thepsyche of the public to see
where people were at on certainissues.
(08:41):
So I had a lot of fun there andthat sort of like also
cultivated my interest.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Similarly.
It's pretty funny, I think, wedon't develop our love for
politics until much later andkind of like you know, you go
down that windy road.
I'm about to date myself here,so pretty much the same grew up
in a family who we really didn'tpay attention to politics like
at all.
I mean my dad was like adrummer in a rock band and my
(09:07):
mom, after they were divorced,you know, she was the biker
chick, so I mean there was likea lot of party and going on and
just you know, that area of theworld just was not even on the
radar until I was graduatinghigh school and realized, look,
I mean I don't have money to goto college.
I have no idea.
What in the hell am I going todo?
I'll join the military, youknow.
(09:30):
And then, being a woman who Iwent into the Marine Corps right
out of high school, that was myfirst really just dipping my
big toe into that pond, becauseI went into public affairs and I
wound up at Quantico and thatwas really I mean just kind of
witted to hyperdrive.
(09:50):
Lessons learned of the politics, of what's going on and being
so close to Washington DC and wehad the tail hook trials going
on at the same time and we hadthe Lone Tree trial with you
know.
He was the first Marine to beaccused of espionage.
We had women who were beingintegrated into training.
You know, at the basic schoolin the Marine Corps, I mean it
was just boom, boom, boom and itjust opened up this world.
(10:14):
I just found it so fascinating.
And at the time, being ajournalist, you know, I was
really in this position where Icould just kind of go and just
ask questions and learn abouteverything that was happening.
And so I found that I becamemore of a student because I was
a journalist in the Marine Corpsand I really just enjoyed the
(10:35):
conversations and the learningand getting the different
perspectives.
And so now fast forward.
You know, I never in a millionyears would have thought I would
have ended up being a mediaanalyst where I'm reading the
news and working with otheranalysts from across the
political spectrum and it's just, it's amazing how you can kind
of get sucked into it.
(10:56):
And you really had no intent todo that.
But you know I had a questionthat you know, speaking of young
adults and how I mean you and Iare kind of examples of how we
develop this appreciation forpolitical communication over
(11:18):
time?
What have you learned in yourstudies over time?
How are we able to reach out toyounger young adults more
effectively?
You know, or are there anytools that you've learned over
time that are working betterthan others you know?
Or is it just a matter of youknow what they're young and we
(11:41):
were all young and none of usreally gave a crap about it you
know at that point in time.
Or are young adults differenttoday than what we were when we
were younger?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yeah, I mean, those are really good questions.
So I think, to start with thelast part, I do believe that the
generations that we, you know,we consider like Gen Z
millennials at this point,though, as a millennial, we're
getting older.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
It's always funny because, like sometimes you, you
know, you see these like listsof, like you know, top
millennials and whatever, andit's like I think actually they
might be confusing likemillennial with just young
person which is absolutely.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
I agree with you, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Yeah, yeah, we're like some of us are getting
getting closer to a middle-agedperson rather than Gen X.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Well, I'm Gen X.
We're kind of like theinvisible generation at this
point.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Sure, yeah, the forgotten Right Gen.
What was that?
No, no.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Gen X.
What was that?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Oh no, so so so, to answer your question, I think I
think the answer is is yes, likeyounger, younger people are
becoming increasingly engaged tothe level that I would like to
see it.
No, I don't think so.
I mean, like I think politicalconversations, public policy
conversations, areextraordinarily important, not
(13:02):
just for what happens today, butthen what happens 20 years in
the future.
And ultimately, like, theyounger voters are going to be
the ones bearing the brunt ofwhatever decisions are made
today, and I think a lot ofpeople are starting to realize
that.
The other thing that is a littlebit different now is that there
is almost like, if you thinkback so I kind of like grew up
(13:26):
on the cusp of technology beingjust like so accessible 24-7.
So, like going into collegefreshman year, facebook was just
starting to become a thing.
But I also remember likedial-up internet where you could
not be on a computer.
If a telephone call came in itwould knock you off.
(13:48):
It made that horrible, like youknow, growing sound, and it's
so funny making those referencesto.
So I Talk about dating myselfright Back in my day.
You have to plug a phone lineinto then into the computer and
then it made this horrible andlike it's.
It's funny because, like I fora little while was teaching a
course at University here in NewJersey, centenary University
(14:12):
and their social media Studiesprogram, which is, which is
pretty cool that they, that theyset that up, but like every
successive class that I had,would Less and less understand
the cultural references that itwould make it hurt me a little
bit more every year.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
I'm like, alright, we're gonna do the Ferris
Bueller thing, like you know whogets it and then eventually
it's just kind of over the headand it just it really hurts your
heart yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
It does, yeah, and like pay phones and things like
that.
But but thinking about, likeyou know, technology and you.
So we were kind of on the cuspcusp of that.
So, like in high school, forexample, or even early college,
like you know, we smartphoneswere starting to become a thing
that that more and more peoplehad.
They were starting to getfaster, you know, easier to use.
(14:58):
So, you know, we kind of got tosee the evolution of what that
looks like.
Now kids are born With access tothe internet in the palm of
their hands if, if they can gettheir hands and then from a very
young age too.
So I think there's a lot ofdifference between how much
information is available to, youknow, to two younger
(15:21):
generations now that that insome way I mean for better, for
worse right, there aredefinitely downsides to all of
that, like we've seen all of thestudies about mental health and
social media.
But on the positive side,sometimes, right, if you can get
accurate information on socialmedia, you do also have access
to news and in some ways, mayeven be a little bit more
(15:42):
well-informed than my generationwas, even even if you know we
were trying, right, like you can.
I mean I honestly Didn't knowvery many people who Would read
the newspaper in in high school.
I mean, you know, some of uswould like browse the, the
headlines and stuff like that,or try the you know New York for
fun.
They try the New York Timescrossword puzzle on Friday,
(16:03):
which was like the big challengeFor some of us.
But so I think I think there'sthe engagement, it's, it's a
number of things, but I thinkthere's there's more on there.
I think there are some Greatsort of activists or
representatives in in thoseyounger generations, gen Z,
(16:23):
millennials who are showing thatEngagement is a good thing
ultimately, and getting outthere and voicing you know,
voicing your concerns aboutwhatever is going on is is a
good thing.
So I think that's the positive.
Now the on the flip side ofthat To your question about how
(16:44):
do we engage younger people inthe political process.
So take all of those thingsright, like access to
information, this ability toalmost get anything that you
want sort of instant, painlessly.
The political process and theand the process in government
can be extraordinarilyfrustrating.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Yeah, extraordinarily frustrating.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Slow, I mean it like.
I mean, like you noted, right,so you were sort of smack dab in
the middle of these sort oflike massive cultural shifts in,
in in the military and and thatand that you know happens.
It feels like it's happeningquickly, but it's actually like
a very kind of slow, deliberateprocess because there are steps
(17:25):
that you know need, you need togo through and you know, in this
, in this country, we haveseparation of powers, at least
the national level, where youhave, you know, an executive,
you have Congress, you have thisSupreme Court and you know
those those three Branches don'talways, you know, move, move
along in units and often don't.
In fact, at this point, eventhe two you know houses of
(17:45):
Congress, you know don't don'tmove along.
So I think that could be veryfrustrating.
And you know when, when you'rehearing about all these issues
like climate change, for example, you know and and as a younger
person, you're thinking, well,you know it's things are getting
weird now, right, like extremeweather, fires, like I mean, we
(18:05):
had this horrible, you knoworange smoke descend upon, you
know, the the New York sort ofmetro area, for yeah, thanks,
canada yeah.
Yeah, can you just put that outactually?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
But like you can, you can kind of understand why
there might be some frustration.
So it's like okay, voted.
Now Where's my?
You know where's the change?
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Why hasn't anything changed?
Speaker 2 (18:30):
right and and I will I will say that, like, things do
change and have changed, it'snot at the at the pace that that
I think is Satisfying in thesense that that people want it
to be so.
So I think that's.
That's a difficulty in terms ofcommunicating, though, like
just from a brass tacksperspective.
Tactically, the one that Icould tell you what not to do is
(18:53):
like the.
The one thing that I see oftenAre these really like ham-fisted
ways of of certain you knowpoliticians or campaigns or
advocacy groups Trying tocommunicate with younger voters
in a way that they believe likeit's, it's almost it.
So I'll just back up a littlebit.
So, as a millennial, right for awhile it was like we were sort
(19:16):
of studied like zoo animals,right, like you know the guys in
the white lab code sitting outthere with their clipboards oh,
what are the millennials want?
What would you know?
What does the millennial think?
You know it's like in the wild.
The millennial gets an avocadotoast and you know you, we sort
of like spends a little bit oftime under the microscope, like
that.
But a lot of that analysis,like misses, like this idea of
(19:37):
like, authenticity and Sometimeslike as a candidate.
You just don't have it rightand that's okay.
Like you don't have to beeverything to everyone, so like
if you're trying to do like atick-tock trend and it's just,
you're not gonna pull it off,don't be patronizing about it.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Yeah, yeah, don't do it skip that part.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
All right, do something else like.
There's some really goodexamples of I'm drawing a blank
on the name there's one memberof Congress that's been a member
of Congress in particular.
That Is good, very good ontick-tock, but it's not because
you know he's running arounddoing dances or Trends or
anything like that.
He literally sits down in frontof a camera and explains what
his date was like in CongressRight.
(20:16):
So now, if you try to be likepatronizing about it and was
like, oh, I'm gonna do a dance,well, I try to tell you what
happened in Congress today, Idon't think people would listen
or pay attention, or payattention for the right reasons.
So I think, like, authenticityis Is extraordinarily important.
Um, if you can pull it off,though, if you can pull off like
(20:37):
a culturally relevant way tospeak to people, then absolutely
do that.
But you need to have the rightmessengers for that.
Like a good messenger messagefit it's extraordinarily
important or important there, um, so I think that's it.
And then I mean and then, likeyou know, the other pieces are
too, it's.
You know, attention spans areDiminishing, um, unfortunately
(20:59):
all of us all of us.
It's not just young voters, it'severybody.
Like you know gen X, or youknow Baby boomers, you know
sitting there on the phoneswhile watching Netflix, while
you know listening to somethingon you know the elect or
whatever.
Uh, home, you know, speaker youhave.
So I think that's the uh.
That's.
The other thing, too, is iskeeping things kind of like
concise and and concrete, um forfor people.
(21:21):
But, uh, you know, I don'tthink there's any sort of magic
way to Speak to younger votersother than to just treat them
with, with respect and to not tonot be patronizing, and then
you can kind of figure out howto go from there because, like,
I do think there is a genuineinterest Among younger voters in
in the issues.
(21:42):
It's just a matter of likegetting past all the barriers to
like have those conversationsand then, um, the the one, the
one big fight, though I thinkit's really like fighting apathy
Does feel like okay, vote itnow.
Like I said before, like now,what, like nothing happened, or
it's and and that can that canbe frustrating.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Yeah, yeah, it seems like the two extremes, you know,
as with anything gets all theattention is either, you know,
like severe apathy or just soincredibly passionate about it.
It's just like on the extremelevel.
And now we're going to just,you know, like, uh, gluer hands
to the pavement or somethinglike that, because I don't want,
you know, traffic to be able todrive by.
(22:21):
You know, just, it seems likethe two extremes really are what
gets all of the attention.
And then you have this coregroup of Young adults who are
genuinely interested in what'sgoing on, but it's it's kind of
hard to to get through thatnoise.
I mean, I know, I I taughtpublic speaking and human
communication for about 18 yearsat the college level and, at
(22:44):
the end of the day, one of thethings that I learned from all
of those students over all ofthose years is who doesn't want
to feel acknowledged, you know,who doesn't want to feel like
they're being listened to, andeven if you have a disagreement
about something, if you can justListen so that you can
understand where they're comingfrom.
(23:04):
And this is something that hasbeen Reinforced, that, as a
media analyst, you know, workingwith so many other analysts, we
come to.
We come to the table, we'rereading all these news and we're
rating the news for reliabilityand bias and we don't always
agree, depending on what it isthat we're reading.
But we really do have to takethat moment to Understand, you
(23:28):
know.
Let's give the space for thisperson to be able to really
Express how they're thinkingabout this and ask the questions
that they need to ask, in anenvironment where you're not
going to just kind of Everybodypile on them because they're
asking a question.
And I think, you know, for youngpeople you know, just from
having these conversations withthem in the classroom, for them,
(23:51):
for many of them I know theyhave had that experience where
it's just they're feeling lessand less inclined to have those
types of conversations becauseit is so loud and If you don't
agree with someone, there's thisfear of, oh, now I'm going to
be cancelled, or now I'm goingto be called out, or I'm going
(24:12):
to end up on somebody's ticktock or you know something,
something Bad is going to resultfrom this, and you know.
So that's really challenging, Ithink, for young adults to Try
to navigate through this Worldthat we've developed, you know,
with technology and social mediaand All of the emotions that
(24:33):
are coming with it.
You know it's so incrediblychallenging.
I do not envy being a youngperson.
In today's day and age oftechnology and in the current
political climate it's um, I'msure it's not easy for them.
I have a daughter who is 25 anda son who is 26 and I hear it
from them all the time about howchallenging it is to To have
(24:58):
these types of conversationsamongst themselves.
Have you been a part of anypolls that have talked to Young
people to kind of gauge how arethey feeling about their ability
to just express what they'rethinking about Different topics
of the day and whether or notthey're confident that they can
Express their feelings or theirthoughts without fear of being
(25:20):
canceled or called out?
You know, on social media, youknow it takes a thousand people
to build a building and just oneMalkin tent with a stick of
dynamite to ruin it all.
Knowing how to reduce conflictand diffuse tension is key to a
happy life and, even though ittends to be difficult for most
(25:40):
of us To have simple tricks andtools that we can learn that
will really improve our lifetoday.
Hesha Abrams, a world renownedmediator, negotiator and author
with over 30 years as an expertin resolving conflict,
implements innovative approachesand thought-provoking solutions
that obtain favorable outcomesfor even the most complex
(26:02):
matters.
Hesha's popular new bookholding the calm Shares her
secrets of how to read asituation to resolve tension,
eliminate conflict and restoreHarmony.
Get a copy of the book today,available on Amazon click on the
link in the show.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, I haven't.
I haven't seen any pollingspecifically on that issue of
ability to Express oneself.
You know, the question reallyis like what, what is the outlet
for that?
So, is it the active voting,which can be a very public or
very quiet sort of thing?
(26:44):
You know it could be activismon, you know, social media,
activism in real, real spaces, Ithink.
Overall, as long as I think mostpeople have a good sense of how
(27:05):
to have a conversation thatdoes evolve into and you make a
really good point, I think thatapplies to all voters, not just
younger voters is that theextremes or anger whenever you
disagree with someone?
From our perspective, this isone of the hardest things,
because obviously, or maybe notso obvious to folks that are
(27:29):
listening, is that when you workin the political sphere, you
often pick a side and you choosethe side that you most agree
with ultimately.
So, personally, I have somevery strong opinions about
certain things.
Those are my opinions, and thenthere's a broad spectrum of
things that fall within a rangeof things that I find to be
(27:51):
productive for society, for ourcountry, and I believe these
things for reasons that I canget into.
However, I will say this thehardest thing is trying to not
come to a conversation withbringing those ideas and then
looking at the person across thetable for me, and if they say
(28:13):
simply, I just don't agree withyou, saying, well, you're an
idiot and here's why Right.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I mean that shuts down immediately, right?
So that's part of the issue isbecause a lot of our political
discourse does in fact happen ata mass communication level,
where it's hard to have thoseengagements, whereas if you're
doing canvassing, knocking ondoors, you can get into these
(28:40):
deeper conversations where it'slike you really look at two
different voters from twodifferent sides of the political
spectrum and there is a lot incommon for most people where
there's overlap and in fact alot of the policies that someone
is supporting may in fact begood for the person who doesn't
(29:01):
think that they support thosepolicies for whatever reason,
because they're looking at itthrough a partisan frame.
But to get back to the idea ofyounger people being able to
express themselves again, Ithink you do see in polling,
focus groups, things like thatAgain frustration that certain
(29:23):
not even certain candidates, butjust like in general like our
political system isn't reallygiving voice to them and no
one's actually like effectivelyI don't want to say nobody, but
very few people are actuallycarrying what they would
consider to be their voice inthe political process, which
(29:43):
kind of is an interesting thingand again I think this applies
to all voters too is we'vealmost gotten away from I don't
want to say almost, because wereally have gotten away from,
yes policy matters like what youstand for.
So, like in an ideal world, ifyou're evaluating two candidates
, you would look at policypositions for candidate A,
policy positions for candidate B, and then you're going I like
(30:06):
this, this and this, this, thisand this, and then, on balance,
you make the decision betweenthe two.
And then we found ourselves ina position where it's a vibes
kind of based decision, right,all vibes, so you could have two
and you see this a lot duringprimary elections right, where
you don't have that partisanframe actually, so you're not
(30:29):
picking between a D or an R.
You're picking a D and a D or anR and R, and I think that gives
you some interesting insightsinto how people consume
political information, then givevoice to their own concerns, or
hope that someone else willgive voice to their own concerns
, is that, like, a lot of thosecandidates and most and two of
(30:51):
the major parties are going tohave this like 95% overlap in in
their actual positions onpolicy.
Now, vibes, that's a differentthing.
You know who's going to fightharder, who is, you know, more
combative or who's funnier,who's more energetic, or I mean
there are all sorts of thingsthat that you know people
(31:13):
evaluate as as a part of thecommunication process, so so
that all adds up to to kind ofan interesting.
Interesting thing is like, evenif you do have a candidate who
does give or who does support alot of policies that younger
voters might like, there may bethis disconnect because of that
(31:34):
vibes problem, right, likethey're just not communicating
themselves in a way that issatisfying in today's kind of
media environment.
Right, it's not snappy enough,it's not, you know, funny enough
, it's not irreverent enough,whatever it is.
So, but that's not an indictmentof any particular age group or
(31:57):
voter.
It really is just the realityof how we all consume, consume
media today.
And again, I think we can getto a place where you know we can
communicate effectively, likeas long as you're thinking about
your message and how you'redelivering that message in the
messenger, but but like I don'tknow it's.
It definitely is an interestingthing.
(32:17):
So I think it's kind of like aninconclusive thing, like I
can't give you an exact answeron like do young voters feel
like they can communicate in away that will, where they can
have debates and then and thennot get, not get canceled for
certain certain viewpoints.
I always I tend to be a littlebit more of an optimist on this
front, like you know.
(32:39):
I think, if you you're carefulabout how you phrase things,
that you can have the, thedebate, yeah and, and not find
yourself in in hot water.
But you know, there has to besome degree of empathy as well,
which I think is missing.
But again, that's like on aone-on-one sort of level.
(33:00):
It's hard to communicateempathy at a mass, on a mass
communication level.
I mean, some people can do itreally well, but for the most
part it's just like on aone-on-one conversation, you
know sitting around the, youknow lunch table and you know
your college's cafeteria orsomething.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
If you communicate with empathy, I think you'll be
okay.
But I don't know if peoplerealize that, like I'm not sure
I haven't seen you know hardnumbers on, on, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
But no, I think, I think you're onto something I
you know, with the experiencesthat we've had as as analysts
coming together to discussdifficult topics, one of the
advantages, I think, of kind ofputting us into this, this weird
experiment, if you will, youknow where you're.
You're talk about the news,you're forced to talk about the
news and now you gotta you know,see if you can't agree on it or
(33:47):
, at least you know, arrive atsome understanding of where you
think it is.
You know on on the, thepolitical bias and and how
reliable it is.
You know you don't know whereyour own blind spots are and in
this is going to lead to aquestion I'm really curious
about for you.
You know we come to the tableand we're all very clear about
(34:10):
our political positions.
You know we always have a rightlane, a left lane and a center.
You know, and everybody knows,what everybody else is.
You know where they land on thepolitical spectrum and and
that's what helps drive ourconversations in an authentic
way.
And then, oh wow, I didn't.
I would have never even thoughtabout that, you know, in that
(34:31):
particular story, because I'mjust not even.
That's not even my perspective.
So we're learning a lot aboutour own blind spots and how to
have these conversations aboutdifficult topics, but we're also
realizing at least you know,this has been my experience.
I'm a conservative, so as aconservative, you know who's an
(34:51):
analyst.
When I come to the table andI'm reading the news, I have to
constantly remind myself it'snot my job to advocate for a
position right now.
It's my job to read thisarticle and to determine whether
this article is advocating fora position.
And so you really do have towork to separate your personal
(35:16):
feelings and your personalbeliefs and your political
beliefs from being able to dothat job.
Is that something similar forwhat you do in your world of
political campaigning?
Or, because you are in theworld of political campaigning,
you are able to take your ownpersonal beliefs and political
beliefs and and allow that to bea driver for how you're working
(35:39):
with different candidates?
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Yeah, I mean, that's a really good.
That's a really good questiontoo.
So I think that there there's apretty broad spectrum of how
people in my position handlethat.
So some, some people definitely, and I think you know, I get
the sense that we may beactually on the opposite sides
(36:03):
of the political spectrum even,which is good.
I think this is really cool,you know cool way to have a
conversation because, like we're, we started out having which I
think is actually a gooddemonstration of like how you
can get to like actualinteresting information or at
least some common viewpoints, orat least have a compelling
conversation about something isyou start off like actually
(36:26):
having a conversation aboutthings without like looking
through those little, thoselenses.
But yeah, I mean I'm definitelyon the opposite side of the
political spectrum Somethingkind of handles a little bit
differently.
Like there's some who are likeideological purists, who, like I
said, you usually pick a sideright.
So if you're working on oneside there's not that much
(36:47):
variance, but there is someright Like there definitely is
some.
So you do have, you know,consultants who will only work
with like the most like, I guess, what you would consider the
most progressive candidates,whereas you know some
consultants will work withanyone on the democratic side of
the aisle and some will workwith more centrist candidates or
(37:12):
whatever.
I personally think, like I do, Idon't believe, generally
speaking for the most part, thatmy specific personal viewpoint
on things is super relevant toworking with clients, because I
(37:33):
think if you take a step back,you realize that you agree again
with 95% of what anybody issaying in any particular race
and then, at least from myperspective, you try to work
with people that you feel aregoing to do the right thing, are
going to advocate in the rightways and actually be able to
(37:55):
affect the kind of change thatyou want to see, as opposed to
sometimes bluster.
There's a little bit and thatcan be again very satisfying,
but it's not always the best wayto get stuff done.
So from my perspective I willsay that we always kind of look
(38:17):
through the lens of certainvalues, like lines we don't
cross, generally speaking.
But I think beyond that, mypersonal political views are not
especially relevant.
I mean, what we're bringing tothe table, as Emily is, we're
professionals, right, so we haveto work with our clients to
(38:40):
develop a message that we thinkis going to help that.
So that's the other thing whereI think this comes in, because
the way that I think about theworld, in terms of my own
personal political views, maynot be the most effective way to
convince someone on the otherside of the aisle even that my
candidate is the right candidatefor the job.
Oftentimes it wouldn't be rightBecause I think again, if you
(39:03):
get into your own sort ofhyperpartisan brain, I'd be so
happy.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I have a friend who is a lawyerhere I'm located in Savannah,
georgia and he contacted me.
This was several years ago.
He said hey, I know someone whois running for Congress for the
first district and I think youtwo really should be in contact
with each other because I thinkyou have a lot in common,
(39:29):
despite the fact that you are ondifferent sides of the
political aisle just as far asyour moral foundations and all
of those things.
So I was like, ok, yeah, I'llchat with her.
And we met several times andmutually respectful, had a lot
(39:51):
of really good, meaningfulconversations and, at the end of
the day, yeah, I mean, eventhough we could agree on some of
those really core values thatwe were talking about, when it
came to, ok, how are we going toexpress those values?
What type of actions, what typeof policies would I support in
(40:14):
order to bring that to light?
That's where we saw the vastdifferences and it ended up
being that we had to separatepart ways because we couldn't
get to that point where we couldarrive at the agreements,
everything from certainterminology to use to who to
(40:37):
reach out to, to haveconversations Because, of course
, from my perspective, I'm likelet's get you in front of some
conservative focus groups andpick their brains and see what
is it that?
And at the end of the day itjust didn't work.
And nothing negative toward heror her beliefs.
(40:58):
It was just a reallyinteresting experience to have
that.
That's why I'm so fascinated bywhat you do in your sphere and
whether or not that is a part ofit having to separate your own
ideology from who you're workingwith.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Yeah, it definitely is.
I mean, the other thing that is, I think, worth noting too is
we're not building candidatesfrom scratch.
We don't go into a laboratoryand take a drop of this, a drop
of that and then put it in amachine and out pop some
candidate who's in exact.
Yeah, like 3D printed Right.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Here's your perfect liberal.
Here's your perfectconservative right.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Right, you're going to set all the right things and
you're not going to have anyproblems whatsoever, and you're
going to be totally personablewhile also very thoughtful.
So that's not a real thing,right?
So these are people who alsocome to the table with their own
ideas, so it's not like we are.
There are moments where youwork with candidates and they're
(42:00):
like I'm thinking really hardabout X issue.
I need some ideas about howbest to approach this.
Here's the outcome.
Here are the values that I wantto bring to solving this problem
, but I just don't know the bestway to get there.
So this is why I have advisorsaround me, whereas sometimes a
(42:20):
candidate will come and say Ihave a very, very specific
viewpoint on something, and eventhough it's focus grouped and
you do the polling and you talkto voters and it's maybe not the
best thing to be talking about,but at the end of the day, the
candidate is the candidate,right?
And our job is to give the bestpossible advice.
(42:41):
And then, if there's somethingthat they feel strongly about,
which is really honestly, theyshould right.
They should feel strongly aboutthings.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
I would hope so.
Yeah, it's not just A passion.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
Right, exactly, it's not just simply exercising and
saying what I think you want meto say.
I have to sell my ideas and mythoughts and myself to you.
So in those circumstances again, we'll put aside even our
professional advice and thendevelop whatever framework to
(43:14):
best deliver that specificviewpoint or message as well.
So there's a little bit ofhaving to take a step back, and
you cannot get too wrapped up inhow you feel emotionally too,
because also you're not a focusgroup of one either.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
I mean, if you're just doing this day in and day
out, you need to get out andtalk to other people, right,
like not living your own headwith this stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:36):
I imagine that's a tough balancing act, though, for
politicians the strugglebetween saying what you think
your constituency wants to hearversus saying what you actually
believe.
I imagine that's reallydifficult.
How to balance that, because,as someone who consumes, I have
(44:00):
a healthy, I think, skepticism,for when I'm listening to
political candidates, I'm alwaysin the back of my mind
wondering are you telling mewhat you think I want to hear,
or are you being real with meright now and I imagine a lot of
people feel the same way,especially in today's climate
with politicians, and they don'texactly have the best
(44:21):
reputations with things that arehappening in the political
sphere.
So do you ever have candidatesthat have that conversation with
you, that balance between ohman, but I know my constituency
wants this, but I want that, andhow do I rectify that?
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Yeah, I mean, that is a conversation that you have
and I think, at the end of theday, I think that's a good
question and this is sort ofwhere I kind of like we draw
lines on certain things is thatSometimes, like a constituency
will want something that isEntirely in Contravention to
(45:04):
what you believe democracy isall about, like the, the
fundamental fabric of thiscountry, right, the idea that we
have Elections, that theresults of the elections then
pick the winners, like it or not, like it or not, and that
Calling that, calling thosesorts of things into question,
is extraordinarily dangerousbecause it it undermines
(45:29):
everything on every side of youknow, middle, right, center,
whatever it is last way, yeah,undermines everything.
So so, in terms of like issueslike that where we're talking
about like the very fabric ofour democracy and we don't run
into this a lot with our clients, but, like I know it, that
happens and I hear it from fromother people too it's like we
(45:49):
just don't like you can't likethat.
That's my position is, like you, just you cannot.
So, even if your constituencywants to hear like you call into
question something that is,that it's gonna be fundamentally
, you know, have a deleteriouseffect on Democracy or elections
, or or our institutions.
Don't do it.
Yeah that's the area that wekind of draw the line with
(46:11):
everything else, though.
It's like, alright, like arena,talk about, you know, fiscal
policy or monetary policy, youknow really like boring kind of
stuff sometimes.
But From from thoseperspectives, right, like, I
think there's always a way totake what the candidate believes
and then take, look at when theelectorate is and and develop a
(46:34):
frame that helps people getthrough the door.
So this is actually aconversation that we have with
with a lot of our clients.
It's like okay, what areas dowe have to meet people where
they are?
And then what areas?
do we have to lead, yeah, andyou can't do it all all the time
right.
You cannot lead people from oneplace to another in each issue,
because it's just not how.
I mean, there's not an infiniteamount of time and resources to
(46:59):
do that, so so you have to makedecisions about the things that
you're going to try to leadpeople, pick your issues and
then and then try to shift thethe overton window on those
types of things, and sometimesthey're tiny shifts.
I mean, sometimes it's not thatbig a leap from what you think
is the best thing, basicallywhat you think is the best thing
, based on on all of the expertsand policy and research that
(47:22):
you've done and what theelectorate wants to hear.
So I think, again, it's so.
That is a conversation that wedo have.
It's like how do how do we getthere?
But I do think a lot of it hasto do not so much with the, the
core substance of a message, butthe framing of the message that
makes it can make a world ofdifference and how people are
hearing what you're, what you'resaying.
(47:42):
So I think there is a way to doit.
We've we've done it, you know,we do it all the time, you know,
just trying to reconcile thoseviews, because it's again, and
it really is about taking thatstep back and saying, okay, I
hear what you're saying and Ihear what the can of E is saying
, and it's like are they reallyeven so different?
Though, right, they even sodifferent?
(48:03):
And then, most of the most ofthe time, the answer is no, it's
really not so different.
It's just like let's tweak theframe With which we're talking
about this particular issue.
Yeah, I think people are gonnaget it.
So that's.
That is something that we dotalk about frequently.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yeah, yeah, I appreciate your point that you
made as well.
I mean it, at some point you dohave to think about, you know,
the topics of the day and andwhat are the constituents you
know Believing in and what arethey talking about and what do
they want to hear?
And you know, I know, at leastfrom my point of view, when I
hear someone and people who youknow, I've known for a very,
(48:39):
very long time, you know fellowconservatives that they, you
know they, they're stillinsisting that the 2020 election
was stolen and I'm like, can weplease just stop, stop.
Let's just, you know, and so ifthere's a politician that wants
to feed into that for me, I, Iimmediately will just close my
(49:02):
ears because, fundamentally, Ithink there's something wrong
with perpetuating, you know thatidea.
So I think it's, you know it's,I don't know, at least on my
side of the aisle, I think wehave a lot of challenges moving
forward with our politiciansbecause they're having to make
some hard decisions on, you know, are, am I going to placate
(49:24):
this very loud group over hereor am I going to, you know, come
over here and and talk withthis group?
You know, that's one of thethings that when I was watching
the midterm elections and thenAll the conversations that were
surrounding what was happeninghere in Georgia governor camp,
you know, and in Raffensperger,and then you know the thing that
(49:46):
happened with Trump, I willhave to say I was so incredibly
relieved when I was okay, mygovernor has, kind of like,
stood his ground, our secretaryof state stood his ground and
and, and I was very happy, youknow, with him doing that.
But there were a lot ofconservatives who are in the
(50:07):
Trump camp who are not, you know, happy with that at all.
So it's it's just from a myperspective.
It's really interesting lookingat the candidates that are
coming out and what are thechoices that they are making on
On who they want to, I guess,speak to, you know, and and kind
of get them in their camp.
(50:29):
It's just it's what a time,what a crazy time.
If you've read my book crackingthe rich code, you know it is
chock full of fantastic advicefrom top thought leaders and
super successful entrepreneursfrom around the world.
How would you like to be amember of an exclusive community
(50:52):
that provides that same how-tocontent from those same leaders?
What if you were able to attendmember only live events and
interact with them.
I'd like to invite you to jointhe rich code club.
It will change the way youthink about yourself, your money
and your life.
It's the only social mediaplatform purely focused on
(51:15):
helping you grow.
Join the rich code club todayfor free by clicking on the link
in the show notes.
Speaker 2 (51:21):
Yeah, it's definitely interesting and there are a lot
of challenges, and the onething that I like to say is like
anger is easy, right, that'slike a very, it's an activating
emotion, right.
So it's like, once you tap intothat anger, it's, it's easy,
it's a little bit addicting.
Yeah, I can kind of bring youback to To that place where
people feel aggrieved or likesomething Quite go right or
something was wrong during theelection and all of that.
(51:43):
But you know what was no is nottrue, right, everything it was.
It was probably one of the mostsecure elections and you know
the history of elections.
People are watching in a waythat was like never done before,
so so clearly like there wasn'tan issue, but like, again, that
anger overlaid I mean, nobodylikes to lose I mean that's,
(52:04):
that's a big thing.
And you know, it's kind of cometo feel so existential that
like the stakes Are so we feellike they're so high that like
it is easy to tap into thatanger To your point though it is
possible to push, push back andlike, admittedly, I was
definitely rooting for the otherside in the end.
(52:24):
Yes, but I will say this like Ido think, you know, the governor
probably did get, at least inthe general election, a little
bit of credit, even from someDemocrats, if you look at the
numbers that you know.
He did take a stand.
Now Do they agree with him onany other policy?
Maybe not, but like, there aresome Very fundamental things in
our political system that Ithink are are just you can be
(52:45):
inviolable, right, you cannot,you just should not touch it,
and they're being violated everyday, unfortunately In some ways
.
So it's, it's a tough, it is atough way you, you, you, you,
you, you, to conduct campaignsbecause I'm sure, actually, well
, I don't want to say I'm sureI'm positive, and you hear this,
(53:08):
you know, in the, in the backchannels of you know, and sort
of consultant, consultant, world, right, like Candidates on the
other side of the aisle, like alot of them want to be talking
about something else.
Speaker 1 (53:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:21):
About something else and and they just feel like they
can't, you know, and, and yousee, it's like toxic, it is very
toxic in in the generalelection to still be doing the
election denial stuff, you know.
So it's, but like everyone'slike, well, how do we get away
from this?
How do we get away from this?
Or we're gonna start movingaway from, and then they just
can't, for some reason orsomething prevents them from.
(53:42):
I mean, it's really an, youknow, an electoral issue right
there, afraid of losing theirseat, exactly, and no one's
ready to take that, that plunge.
Or they, you know, dip their toein the water and they get, you
know, they get bitten by thepiranha and then they Well,
don't want to do that, so it'sum, I don't envy, envy that
(54:03):
position that a lot of folks inthe other side of the aisle are
in, other than to say that, likeI think at some point, like
there has to be a decision, justbe like we're not gonna do this
anymore.
Like we're, we have a bunch ofcore issues that we want to
focus on, so let's do that.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
And again, I'm not saying I agree with them or I
think they're even necessarilygood for America, but like I
think, it's better for Americathan debating the very
Foundations of our whether ornot we want democracy in this
country, because I think theanswer is yes, we do, because
the alternative is not good andyou know, and to your point you
know, about Anger and thoseheightened emotions that you
(54:40):
know that they certainly are adriver and when we've seen this,
you know, Just looking at the,the media that we're consuming,
that falls below this line ofyou know what we consider to be
high quality news and thenthere's just so much that falls
below that line into the lowerquality news and I'm there's
logical fallacies at hominem.
(55:02):
And you know, boogie man, youknow, and it's us versus them
mentality and it's just, andit's that driver.
And if you're someone, that isall you're doing is you're
consuming.
You know those hyper partisantype of Media sources and you
know, on either side, because wesee it on on both sides, you
(55:23):
know, of course you become evenmore embedded in that identity
of you know what it means to bea Progressive, or, you know, or
a liberal, or a Republican, youknow, or a, you know a, a
patriot.
You know those labels, thatthat we like to call ourselves
and and we have no idea Aboutthe conversations that are
(55:44):
happening on the other side andit's just, it's Confirmation
bias all over the place.
It's it's a really difficultthing to try to Transcend.
You know, getting people out oftheir.
You know they're embedded.
They really do get embedded inthose identities and and I'm
sure it's it's very difficultfor candidates.
(56:07):
Do you often give them adviceon Particular sources that would
be better to stay away fromversus sources that would be
better to?
Yeah, this, this will be a goodsource to get your word out.
You know, do y'all do that aswell with with your advice, that
you get them absolutely.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
I think there are a number of factors that go into
it.
So there are certain candidateswho Are just really good.
So everyone kind of brings adifferent skill set to the table
too.
So you have some, somecandidates who are really good
with you know an interview, somethat are really good on the
stump, you know, at rallies andthings like that, some that are
(56:49):
just like maybe not so good atthose two things but, but you
put them in a diner with a groupof voters and they're gonna
knock it out of the park becausethey can connect on that
one-on-one Level.
So you kind of have to know whoyou're, who you're working with
At that point.
So in some cases, like ourinclination is like if you have
to win you know a generalelection in, in most places, I
(57:13):
have no problem with candidatesgoing on news, you know, or
engaging with news sources thatare or not even necessarily like
news sources, but also like I.
Speaker 1 (57:27):
When I say news, I mean also commentary too,
because it like oh yeah, oh yeah, that's just, that's like the
vast majority of it.
It's right.
Speaker 2 (57:34):
Right, it's not really hard.
Hard news it's.
It's a commentary masqueradingas hard news, and so I'll say,
like you, absolutely can.
You just have to be preparedfor it.
You have to not get sort of aninto an emotional tangle over it
, because that, like the job ofthe host and I think this is
this is one of the things thatlike was interesting to learn.
You know, getting into thisbusiness is that Journalists,
(57:56):
commentators, you know, opinioncolumnists, they're all they all
have a job to do and and thatjob is not my job, right,
they're not.
They're not here to make mylife easier, yeah.
Or the candidates life easier,right.
And so once you realize thatyou're like, okay, like, can you
really get offended by, like, anegative news story here,
negative news story there?
It's like, no, they're doingtheir job.
(58:18):
Now the question is do you wantyour Narrative to be a part of
that story or do you want to becompletely left out of it?
And I think there are argumentsfor most of the time yes, you do
want your narrative to be apart of that story, even if it's
gonna have a negative tilt, aslong as you go in there with
good humor and you engage ingood faith and have have your
(58:40):
answers and viewpoints reallysharp, then I think you're Okay,
like I think it's okay and youshould do that.
There are times where I wouldsay no, like do not engage with
the particular news source orcommentator Strictly because,
like they have showed Repeatedbad faith, like they're just not
(59:02):
interested, like they'llcontinue to interrupt you,
they'll try to, you know, createsome sort of Issue and like, if
you're not ready for that, thenand or or it's just, like it's
so blatantly ridiculous thatthat it's almost insurmountable,
no matter how good you are inan interview.
Then I would say, like you knowwhat Not worth going on there,
(59:23):
because they're just their.
Their agenda is is very clear.
It's not absolutely.
Roll roll over you.
There was an interesting thing,though Recently was with, was
it Gavin Newsom on was Hannity.
I think that interview wasreally interesting, right, so
like I think, in that case, likethe, I Mean it, but again, like
(59:46):
I don't, I don't love Hannity,right, like obviously right,
yeah, yeah, the conventionalwisdom you would think would be
like maybe that's not the bestuse of your time.
Exactly, exactly.
But I think, like the the thingis like if, if you can do it
and go in there and keep yourcool and I think avenues and did
a great job of doing that.
And like Pete Buttigieg does itall the time in the Democratic
(01:00:07):
side of the aisle as well on FoxNews, you know he's he's very
measured and is able to delivera message Like that.
And again, it depends on, like,what position you're into.
So like being like a cabinetsecretary or a governor or
senator or member of Congress isAlso different than being the
president of the United Statestoo.
(01:00:27):
Like there's a certain likedignity at the presidential
level that, like you know, youcan actually pick and choose a
little bit more.
But lower down on the ladder Ithink you can be a little bit
more more flexible and perhapsadventurous with stuff like that
.
But but the Hannity episode Imean you have to like there are
people who listen to Hannity whohave not heard the Democratic
(01:00:48):
viewpoint on anything Right, andit's probably a good thing that
they do actually hear that.
Whether or not they buy it atthe end totally different
question.
But so I wouldn't say there'slike a hard and fast rule that
we approach things with, but wedo have the conversation I'm
always inclined to like the moreyou can engage, the better off
you're gonna be.
It's only because you're gonnabe reaching people, and that
(01:01:09):
also is a function of howfragmented our media landscape
is.
So it's not like you can justgo on cronkite Right and your
center the country anymore.
You have to like figure outlike, okay, well, you got.
You have some people watchingCNN, some people are watching
MSVC, some people are watchingFox and you know on the cable
and and still that's All ofthose combined, still a small
(01:01:32):
fraction of the overallpopulation of the country.
And then you have some peoplewho are still reading newspapers
, but then a lot of people arelooking at their phones or, you
know, checking.
Well, it's not what is?
it.
Twitter, x, x, twitter,whatever it's X now.
X Twitter.
It's like, literally, but nowis X the platform formerly known
(01:01:52):
as Twitter.
But people are looking at their, their platform.
So it's it's a matter of oftrying to be everywhere, right,
and that's.
And that's even podcasts, right, like you know.
They're really great.
I mean, you have a loyalaudience of people who listen to
you.
It's great to be on podcasts,you know, if you, if you can
manage to do that.
(01:02:13):
So I am inclined to say, like,go on everything, don't be super
defensive about stuff and justget out there, just know what
you're getting into.
Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
Yeah, exactly, I'm prepared for that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
Yeah, I gotta tell you, matt, this has been, at
least for me.
I don't know about youlisteners, but for me this has
been an awesome conversation.
I really enjoyed this.
I can't believe we've actuallybeen talking, for I mean, it's
been a good hour now already.
That time has just flown by.
I do want to go ahead and wrapup, but before I do, I wanted to
(01:02:44):
ask your opinion or or if youhave any advice for our
listeners.
We are getting into 2024 and wealready know election season is
.
It's here.
Okay, I'm just gonna say it'shere.
There's no gearing up for 2024.
We're already geared up.
So what type of advice wouldyou have for our listeners, you
(01:03:06):
know, going into this nextelection cycle, as far as the
being consumers of communication, you know, what advice do you
have for them?
As far as you know how tolisten, what to listen to, what
to listen for, anything likethat.
Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, I think there are two,two sort of parallel tracks of
advice that that I would, that Iwould give.
So the first is communicatingin your personal life around
some of these issues, becauseit's going to be present like
every day for a lot of us in alot of different places, whether
it's the workplace or at home,or with neighbors or friends.
(01:03:48):
And then there's there's theconsuming, the news, the news
piece, like, like you said, andI think in both of those
parallel tracks, just from aconsumer perspective it's, it's
best to acknowledge or observeyour emotion when you're reading
something or hearing somethingand take a minute and be like
(01:04:10):
okay, like I'm angry about this.
All right, I see that.
Why.
Like what, what about thismakes me angry.
And then if you don't have agood answer to that or or you
know, or missing a part of theof the puzzle, like go look
somewhere else for for an answer.
Look, look in a place that youwouldn't normally, you know, in
(01:04:32):
a new source that you normallywouldn't consume, you know, try
to try to figure, figure it out.
Also, like there are, I do I dowant to just say this to, and
I'm sure you see this all thetime too, like there are just
like junk sources of informationon the.
Oh, absolutely junk, likeabsolute junk, and no amount of
like, both sizing, like oh well,this side or that side is ever
(01:04:53):
going to make those outlets anybetter.
It's just junk, it's garbage,it's, it doesn't.
There's nothing in there that's, that's going to be any of use.
And and if you're, you know,really digging down to the
bottom of the Google barrel,there you're not going to find
anything of use, right?
So?
But there are again, like, forbetter or for worse, like most
of the major news outlets outthere have some degree of
(01:05:17):
credibility, credibility andeditorial standards that you can
kind of count on.
And you know, looking at thedifferent bents of different
things, you know you can, youcan find information.
So I would say, like, look inplaces that you wouldn't
normally look, but avoid likethe really like crazy, like
anything that sounds likeexcessively nuts for the most
part could be totally nonsense.
(01:05:40):
So take a minute before you goahead and, and you know, slam
that share button on Facebookand, and you know, share
whatever meme or thing that thatyou see there on onto your own
timeline.
So that's, that's the advicethat I would give is like, kind
of observe your emotions alittle bit on on how you're
responding to things because Ithink, like we, we it's so
(01:06:03):
automatic and we're readingsomething that like you feel the
anger, but then you don'tactually like recognize that
you're angry about it, you just,and then you know that thumb is
moving toward that, that sharebutton that's right, that's
right.
Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
There's there's something in that article that
is causing you to to feel acertain way.
So to be able to kind ofanalyze that for a little bit
and look at it like what is itabout this, I think that's
fantastic advice.
I mean, that's what we have todo as soon as we find that.
You know what?
I feel a bit triggered at themoment.
What's what's going on here?
Let's take this apart.
(01:06:38):
I see, look at the languagejust being used.
There's a lot of politicalpositioning happening in here,
and so I think that's wiseadvice.
As consumers of communication,we just have to be mindful of
what it is that we're taking in.
You're right, there's a lot ofjunk out there.
We got to be mindful of that.
I don't think having a slightbias is inherently bad.
(01:07:02):
I mean, that's what makesdemocracy right.
I mean, we will havedifferences of ideas of how to
move forward with certain youknow policies, but that's the
beauty of it.
We should be able to talk aboutthose things.
You know, having differentperspectives is critical in a
democracy, I think.
But yeah, if we can stay awayfrom the hyper partisan stuff, I
(01:07:23):
think we'll all be better forit.
So, matt, thank you so much forfor coming on the show and
sharing your wisdom and yourexperience in this field.
I think political communicationis just endlessly fascinating.
I'm just so happy that we wereable to have this conversation,
and I know the listeners got alot out of it as well.
(01:07:46):
It's just, I've truly, trulyenjoyed having you here.
Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
Yeah, thank you for having me.
I really enjoyed it too.
Speaker 1 (01:07:54):
So anybody who is interested in following up with
you or learning more about yourorganization, how can they do so
?
Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
We're using LinkedIn a lot these days, so you can
find me on LinkedIn MattCreighton, k-r-a-y-t-o-n.
It's an unusual spelling so Ithink I might be the only Matt
Creighton spell that way on theplanet.
So there you go, super easy tofind.
You can also find Albalytics,which has, you know, we have
some more sort of corporatefocused insights on various
(01:08:24):
communication issues on there onthat feed.
So you can find us on LinkedIn,on the website and and you know
, we're starting to get into thethreads to a little bit.
So if you yeah, that's.
Speaker 1 (01:08:36):
That's going to be an interesting one in it.
Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
Yeah we'll see if it's got staying power.
You know we'll see, but yeah,we're giving it a shot.
So so yeah, those are, thoseare the spots on on on the web
that you can find us, and andagain, thank you so much for
having me on.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
Absolutely, and I'll make sure that we have all those
links in the show notes foreveryone.
All right, everybody.
I hope you enjoyed today's show.
I know I did, and I hope all ofyou have a wonderful rest of
your day.
All right, y'all take care now.
Thanks for listening.
(01:09:11):
If you enjoyed this episode andyou'd like to help support the
podcast, please share it withothers, post about it on social
media or leave a rating and areview.
I cannot think of a better way to kick off season
four than with an interview withsomeone who has not only seen
behind the curtain, but has beenan active participant in
creating what goes on behind thecurtain in political campaigns.
This past summer, in 2023, Ihad the honor of interviewing
Matt Crayton, the founder ofPublitex.
(00:20):
Now, if you're not familiarwith Publitex, they provide
media and political consultingto candidates from the local to
federal levels all over thecountry.
In addition to working withpolitical candidates, they've
also worked with PACs andindustry groups and corporate
clients to navigate thepolitical landscape, and in 2020
, matt helped create PresidentJoe Biden's viral we Just Did
(00:45):
Hat.
I think it's important to notehere that, although Matt and I
don't share the same politicalideologies, we do share an
understanding that effectivecommunication is of the utmost
importance, not only in thepolitical sphere, but also to
how we communicate with oneanother about the critical
topics of the day and how we goabout getting our information
(01:10):
and why all of this is crucialto our democracy.
I really enjoyed thisconversation with Matt, and I'm
sure you will too.
Let's go Welcome to theCommunication 24-7 podcast,
where we communicate about howwe communicate.
(01:32):
I'm your host, jennifer Furlong.
I have a special treat today.
I'm super excited about today'sguest.
Now.
Those of you who are longtimelisteners, you know that my
(01:55):
daytime job as a media analyst.
I really get into the politicsof things.
I'm fascinated by how wecommunicate about politics, how
it impacts, how we communicatewith one another just being a
consumer of communication and soa very important aspect of that
is campaigning, and I am sothrilled to be able to say that
(02:18):
I have an expert with me todayin political communication.
Matt Craton is founder ofPublitex.
It's a strategy firm really forpoliticians well, anything, I
guess, related to politics.
So we're going to listen toMatt explain a little bit about
what he does with his firm, butthen, after we get to know him a
(02:42):
little better, I want to dokind of a deep dive Into just
how are things going in ourworld today and what are some
strategies that maybe you and Ican learn from Matt so that we
can have better, more meaningfulconversations about some of the
more difficult topics thatwe're having to grapple with in
(03:03):
our society today.
So, matt, thank you so much forbeing on the show.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Thank you for having me on Jen, Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That was kind of a really quick, really broad.
Here's Matt, and this is whathe's doing today.
Would you mind just introducingyourself to the listeners and
letting them know exactly whatis Publitex and what kind of
relationship to the politicalsphere do you have?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Sure, absolutely so.
Publitex is a full service PR,public affairs and political
consulting firm and, as younoted, we focus a lot and think
a lot about strategy, both forour political clients, nonprofit
clients, and then things that Ilike to call political adjacent
, which is almost everythingthese days.
(03:50):
Everything is almost politicaladjacent, so we provide a
variety of services for ourclients, but cut our teeth in
the political world.
So I started back in 2011 bymyself solo practitioner, poking
(04:11):
around for whatever campaignwould hire me at that point.
So I was a fresh out of gradschool, had no idea what I was
going to do.
I had a job, didn't love it andI was like well, I've always
liked politics, so let's trythis, and luckily, it's worked
out over the years.
So I've been doing campaignsever since, and that's really
(04:33):
where I developed mycommunication skills and some of
the things that we bring to ourclients.
Even in other sectors, you canlearn a lot from political
campaigns, both what to do andwhat not to do.
And then in 2014, I brought ona partner and we've been growing
ever since, so he's also apolitical consultant as well.
(04:59):
So he had traveled the countrymanaging campaigns from the
federal level on down.
So that's sort of how we gotour start, and now we're still
doing a lot of campaign work,but then, like I said, we're
also doing a lot of work in sortof the political sphere and
then also corporatecommunications as well.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That's fantastic.
So what were you like as a kid?
Were you always into politics,or was this just something that
developed later on?
Speaker 2 (05:27):
That's an interesting question.
So what was I like as a kid?
I wasn't into politics per se.
I didn't grow up in, I think,what you would consider to be
like a hyper political familyand in fact I kind of ended up
on the opposite side of thespectrum of most of my family
(05:48):
though there's been someshuffling in recent years, as
has been in a lot of differentfamilies, but I always did have
this interest in history.
So I was very lucky from ayoung age that my grandparents
in particular helped me kind ofnurture that interest in history
(06:09):
.
So for some reason I really gotinto like the Civil War era
type stuff.
So they took me on severaltrips to tour the battlefields
and learn all about that stuff.
So I always had this interestin history and how governments
worked and then ultimatelytranslated, I might say like in
high school, like I wasinterested in politics, paying
(06:30):
attention, but again not like areally hyper partisan person,
not someone that was payingsuper close attention other than
reading the headlines and kindof consuming the news and
politics.
That way In college definitelybecame more politically active
and tried to learn.
(06:51):
So I minored in politicalscience, majored in history,
which I guess was inevitable.
I was actually my path.
I was on a path to be a historyteacher, actually a social
studies teacher.
So that was my thought leavinghigh school, getting into
college.
I like teaching, like history,like what can you even do with
this?
So he's like, oh, I can teach.
So did that whole thing, wentthrough my undergrad, did a
(07:15):
master's degree in education andthen 2008 came along.
Economy melted down.
I graduated in 2010 fromundergrad, 2011 from grad school
, and there were no jobs forteachers, especially history
teachers.
So that's where I was like kindof stuck and I was like all
(07:37):
right, well, I have this degreeand I've developed this interest
.
And in grad school too, Iactually had the opportunity to
work for a public opinionpolling institute at the
university that I was at.
So I got to kind of experiencefirsthand how people put
together polls how you gaugepublic.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That was fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, it was fascinating, especially like the
mechanics of it because, likeyou always buy until you're,
like, really paying attention,you don't really appreciate,
like all of the work andintricacies that go into it and,
honestly, all of the challengesnow today which at that point
even it would have been hard toimagine the world that we're in
(08:19):
today from just the puredifficulty of measuring public
opinion on any given issue, letalone the horse race of a
political campaign.
So that was really fascinatingbecause we got to kind of dig
into issues and sort of thepsyche of the public to see
where people were at on certainissues.
(08:41):
So I had a lot of fun there andthat sort of like also
cultivated my interest.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Similarly.
It's pretty funny, I think, wedon't develop our love for
politics until much later andkind of like you know, you go
down that windy road.
I'm about to date myself here,so pretty much the same grew up
in a family who we really didn'tpay attention to politics like
at all.
I mean my dad was like adrummer in a rock band and my
(09:07):
mom, after they were divorced,you know, she was the biker
chick, so I mean there was likea lot of party and going on and
just you know, that area of theworld just was not even on the
radar until I was graduatinghigh school and realized, look,
I mean I don't have money to goto college.
I have no idea.
What in the hell am I going todo?
I'll join the military, youknow.
(09:30):
And then, being a woman who Iwent into the Marine Corps right
out of high school, that was myfirst really just dipping my
big toe into that pond, becauseI went into public affairs and I
wound up at Quantico and thatwas really I mean just kind of
witted to hyperdrive.
(09:50):
Lessons learned of the politics, of what's going on and being
so close to Washington DC and wehad the tail hook trials going
on at the same time and we hadthe Lone Tree trial with you
know.
He was the first Marine to beaccused of espionage.
We had women who were beingintegrated into training.
You know, at the basic schoolin the Marine Corps, I mean it
was just boom, boom, boom and itjust opened up this world.
(10:14):
I just found it so fascinating.
And at the time, being ajournalist, you know, I was
really in this position where Icould just kind of go and just
ask questions and learn abouteverything that was happening.
And so I found that I becamemore of a student because I was
a journalist in the Marine Corpsand I really just enjoyed the
(10:35):
conversations and the learningand getting the different
perspectives.
And so now fast forward.
You know, I never in a millionyears would have thought I would
have ended up being a mediaanalyst where I'm reading the
news and working with otheranalysts from across the
political spectrum and it's just, it's amazing how you can kind
of get sucked into it.
(10:56):
And you really had no intent todo that.
But you know I had a questionthat you know, speaking of young
adults and how I mean you and Iare kind of examples of how we
develop this appreciation forpolitical communication over
(11:18):
time?
What have you learned in yourstudies over time?
How are we able to reach out toyounger young adults more
effectively?
You know, or are there anytools that you've learned over
time that are working betterthan others you know?
Or is it just a matter of youknow what they're young and we
(11:41):
were all young and none of usreally gave a crap about it you
know at that point in time.
Or are young adults differenttoday than what we were when we
were younger?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yeah, I mean, those are really good questions.
So I think, to start with thelast part, I do believe that the
generations that we, you know,we consider like Gen Z
millennials at this point,though, as a millennial, we're
getting older.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
It's always funny because, like sometimes you, you
know, you see these like listsof, like you know, top
millennials and whatever, andit's like I think actually they
might be confusing likemillennial with just young
person which is absolutely.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
I agree with you, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Yeah, yeah, we're like some of us are getting
getting closer to a middle-agedperson rather than Gen X.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Well, I'm Gen X.
We're kind of like theinvisible generation at this
point.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Sure, yeah, the forgotten Right Gen.
What was that?
No, no.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Gen X.
What was that?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Oh no, so so so, to answer your question, I think I
think the answer is is yes, likeyounger, younger people are
becoming increasingly engaged tothe level that I would like to
see it.
No, I don't think so.
I mean, like I think politicalconversations, public policy
conversations, areextraordinarily important, not
(13:02):
just for what happens today, butthen what happens 20 years in
the future.
And ultimately, like, theyounger voters are going to be
the ones bearing the brunt ofwhatever decisions are made
today, and I think a lot ofpeople are starting to realize
that.
The other thing that is a littlebit different now is that there
is almost like, if you thinkback so I kind of like grew up
(13:26):
on the cusp of technology beingjust like so accessible 24-7.
So, like going into collegefreshman year, facebook was just
starting to become a thing.
But I also remember likedial-up internet where you could
not be on a computer.
If a telephone call came in itwould knock you off.
(13:48):
It made that horrible, like youknow, growing sound, and it's
so funny making those referencesto.
So I Talk about dating myselfright Back in my day.
You have to plug a phone lineinto then into the computer and
then it made this horrible andlike it's.
It's funny because, like I fora little while was teaching a
course at University here in NewJersey, centenary University
(14:12):
and their social media Studiesprogram, which is, which is
pretty cool that they, that theyset that up, but like every
successive class that I had,would Less and less understand
the cultural references that itwould make it hurt me a little
bit more every year.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
I'm like, alright, we're gonna do the Ferris
Bueller thing, like you know whogets it and then eventually
it's just kind of over the headand it just it really hurts your
heart yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
It does, yeah, and like pay phones and things like
that.
But but thinking about, likeyou know, technology and you.
So we were kind of on the cuspcusp of that.
So, like in high school, forexample, or even early college,
like you know, we smartphoneswere starting to become a thing
that that more and more peoplehad.
They were starting to getfaster, you know, easier to use.
(14:58):
So, you know, we kind of got tosee the evolution of what that
looks like.
Now kids are born With access tothe internet in the palm of
their hands if, if they can gettheir hands and then from a very
young age too.
So I think there's a lot ofdifference between how much
information is available to, youknow, to two younger
(15:21):
generations now that that insome way I mean for better, for
worse right, there aredefinitely downsides to all of
that, like we've seen all of thestudies about mental health and
social media.
But on the positive side,sometimes, right, if you can get
accurate information on socialmedia, you do also have access
to news and in some ways, mayeven be a little bit more
(15:42):
well-informed than my generationwas, even even if you know we
were trying, right, like you can.
I mean I honestly Didn't knowvery many people who Would read
the newspaper in in high school.
I mean, you know, some of uswould like browse the, the
headlines and stuff like that,or try the you know New York for
fun.
They try the New York Timescrossword puzzle on Friday,
(16:03):
which was like the big challengeFor some of us.
But so I think I think there'sthe engagement, it's, it's a
number of things, but I thinkthere's there's more on there.
I think there are some Greatsort of activists or
representatives in in thoseyounger generations, gen Z,
(16:23):
millennials who are showing thatEngagement is a good thing
ultimately, and getting outthere and voicing you know,
voicing your concerns aboutwhatever is going on is is a
good thing.
So I think that's the positive.
Now the on the flip side ofthat To your question about how
(16:44):
do we engage younger people inthe political process.
So take all of those thingsright, like access to
information, this ability toalmost get anything that you
want sort of instant, painlessly.
The political process and theand the process in government
can be extraordinarilyfrustrating.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Yeah, extraordinarily frustrating.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Slow, I mean it like.
I mean, like you noted, right,so you were sort of smack dab in
the middle of these sort oflike massive cultural shifts in,
in in the military and and thatand that you know happens.
It feels like it's happeningquickly, but it's actually like
a very kind of slow, deliberateprocess because there are steps
(17:25):
that you know need, you need togo through and you know, in this
, in this country, we haveseparation of powers, at least
the national level, where youhave, you know, an executive,
you have Congress, you have thisSupreme Court and you know
those those three Branches don'talways, you know, move, move
along in units and often don't.
In fact, at this point, eventhe two you know houses of
(17:45):
Congress, you know don't don'tmove along.
So I think that could be veryfrustrating.
And you know when, when you'rehearing about all these issues
like climate change, for example, you know and and as a younger
person, you're thinking, well,you know it's things are getting
weird now, right, like extremeweather, fires, like I mean, we
(18:05):
had this horrible, you knoworange smoke descend upon, you
know, the the New York sort ofmetro area, for yeah, thanks,
canada yeah.
Yeah, can you just put that outactually?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
But like you can, you can kind of understand why
there might be some frustration.
So it's like okay, voted.
Now Where's my?
You know where's the change?
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Why hasn't anything changed?
Speaker 2 (18:30):
right and and I will I will say that, like, things do
change and have changed, it'snot at the at the pace that that
I think is Satisfying in thesense that that people want it
to be so.
So I think that's.
That's a difficulty in terms ofcommunicating, though, like
just from a brass tacksperspective.
Tactically, the one that Icould tell you what not to do is
(18:53):
like the.
The one thing that I see oftenAre these really like ham-fisted
ways of of certain you knowpoliticians or campaigns or
advocacy groups Trying tocommunicate with younger voters
in a way that they believe likeit's, it's almost it.
So I'll just back up a littlebit.
So, as a millennial, right for awhile it was like we were sort
(19:16):
of studied like zoo animals,right, like you know the guys in
the white lab code sitting outthere with their clipboards oh,
what are the millennials want?
What would you know?
What does the millennial think?
You know it's like in the wild.
The millennial gets an avocadotoast and you know you, we sort
of like spends a little bit oftime under the microscope, like
that.
But a lot of that analysis,like misses, like this idea of
(19:37):
like, authenticity and Sometimeslike as a candidate.
You just don't have it rightand that's okay.
Like you don't have to beeverything to everyone, so like
if you're trying to do like atick-tock trend and it's just,
you're not gonna pull it off,don't be patronizing about it.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Yeah, yeah, don't do it skip that part.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
All right, do something else like.
There's some really goodexamples of I'm drawing a blank
on the name there's one memberof Congress that's been a member
of Congress in particular.
That Is good, very good ontick-tock, but it's not because
you know he's running arounddoing dances or Trends or
anything like that.
He literally sits down in frontof a camera and explains what
his date was like in CongressRight.
(20:16):
So now, if you try to be likepatronizing about it and was
like, oh, I'm gonna do a dance,well, I try to tell you what
happened in Congress today, Idon't think people would listen
or pay attention, or payattention for the right reasons.
So I think, like, authenticityis Is extraordinarily important.
Um, if you can pull it off,though, if you can pull off like
(20:37):
a culturally relevant way tospeak to people, then absolutely
do that.
But you need to have the rightmessengers for that.
Like a good messenger messagefit it's extraordinarily
important or important there, um, so I think that's it.
And then I mean and then, likeyou know, the other pieces are
too, it's.
You know, attention spans areDiminishing, um, unfortunately
(20:59):
all of us all of us.
It's not just young voters, it'severybody.
Like you know gen X, or youknow Baby boomers, you know
sitting there on the phoneswhile watching Netflix, while
you know listening to somethingon you know the elect or
whatever.
Uh, home, you know, speaker youhave.
So I think that's the uh.
That's.
The other thing, too, is iskeeping things kind of like
concise and and concrete, um forfor people.
(21:21):
But, uh, you know, I don'tthink there's any sort of magic
way to Speak to younger votersother than to just treat them
with, with respect and to not tonot be patronizing, and then
you can kind of figure out howto go from there because, like,
I do think there is a genuineinterest Among younger voters in
in the issues.
(21:42):
It's just a matter of likegetting past all the barriers to
like have those conversationsand then, um, the the one, the
one big fight, though I thinkit's really like fighting apathy
Does feel like okay, vote itnow.
Like I said before, like now,what, like nothing happened, or
it's and and that can that canbe frustrating.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Yeah, yeah, it seems like the two extremes, you know,
as with anything gets all theattention is either, you know,
like severe apathy or just soincredibly passionate about it.
It's just like on the extremelevel.
And now we're going to just,you know, like, uh, gluer hands
to the pavement or somethinglike that, because I don't want,
you know, traffic to be able todrive by.
(22:21):
You know, just, it seems likethe two extremes really are what
gets all of the attention.
And then you have this coregroup of Young adults who are
genuinely interested in what'sgoing on, but it's it's kind of
hard to to get through thatnoise.
I mean, I know, I I taughtpublic speaking and human
communication for about 18 yearsat the college level and, at
(22:44):
the end of the day, one of thethings that I learned from all
of those students over all ofthose years is who doesn't want
to feel acknowledged, you know,who doesn't want to feel like
they're being listened to, andeven if you have a disagreement
about something, if you can justListen so that you can
understand where they're comingfrom.
(23:04):
And this is something that hasbeen Reinforced, that, as a
media analyst, you know, workingwith so many other analysts, we
come to.
We come to the table, we'rereading all these news and we're
rating the news for reliabilityand bias and we don't always
agree, depending on what it isthat we're reading.
But we really do have to takethat moment to Understand, you
(23:28):
know.
Let's give the space for thisperson to be able to really
Express how they're thinkingabout this and ask the questions
that they need to ask, in anenvironment where you're not
going to just kind of Everybodypile on them because they're
asking a question.
And I think, you know, for youngpeople you know, just from
having these conversations withthem in the classroom, for them,
(23:51):
for many of them I know theyhave had that experience where
it's just they're feeling lessand less inclined to have those
types of conversations becauseit is so loud and If you don't
agree with someone, there's thisfear of, oh, now I'm going to
be cancelled, or now I'm goingto be called out, or I'm going
(24:12):
to end up on somebody's ticktock or you know something,
something Bad is going to resultfrom this, and you know.
So that's really challenging, Ithink, for young adults to Try
to navigate through this Worldthat we've developed, you know,
with technology and social mediaand All of the emotions that
(24:33):
are coming with it.
You know it's so incrediblychallenging.
I do not envy being a youngperson.
In today's day and age oftechnology and in the current
political climate it's um, I'msure it's not easy for them.
I have a daughter who is 25 anda son who is 26 and I hear it
from them all the time about howchallenging it is to To have
(24:58):
these types of conversationsamongst themselves.
Have you been a part of anypolls that have talked to Young
people to kind of gauge how arethey feeling about their ability
to just express what they'rethinking about Different topics
of the day and whether or notthey're confident that they can
Express their feelings or theirthoughts without fear of being
(25:20):
canceled or called out?
You know, on social media, youknow it takes a thousand people
to build a building and just oneMalkin tent with a stick of
dynamite to ruin it all.
Knowing how to reduce conflictand diffuse tension is key to a
happy life and, even though ittends to be difficult for most
(25:40):
of us To have simple tricks andtools that we can learn that
will really improve our lifetoday.
Hesha Abrams, a world renownedmediator, negotiator and author
with over 30 years as an expertin resolving conflict,
implements innovative approachesand thought-provoking solutions
that obtain favorable outcomesfor even the most complex
(26:02):
matters.
Hesha's popular new bookholding the calm Shares her
secrets of how to read asituation to resolve tension,
eliminate conflict and restoreHarmony.
Get a copy of the book today,available on Amazon click on the
link in the show.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, I haven't.
I haven't seen any pollingspecifically on that issue of
ability to Express oneself.
You know, the question reallyis like what, what is the outlet
for that?
So, is it the active voting,which can be a very public or
very quiet sort of thing?
(26:44):
You know it could be activismon, you know, social media,
activism in real, real spaces, Ithink.
Overall, as long as I think mostpeople have a good sense of how
(27:05):
to have a conversation thatdoes evolve into and you make a
really good point, I think thatapplies to all voters, not just
younger voters is that theextremes or anger whenever you
disagree with someone?
From our perspective, this isone of the hardest things,
because obviously, or maybe notso obvious to folks that are
(27:29):
listening, is that when you workin the political sphere, you
often pick a side and you choosethe side that you most agree
with ultimately.
So, personally, I have somevery strong opinions about
certain things.
Those are my opinions, and thenthere's a broad spectrum of
things that fall within a rangeof things that I find to be
(27:51):
productive for society, for ourcountry, and I believe these
things for reasons that I canget into.
However, I will say this thehardest thing is trying to not
come to a conversation withbringing those ideas and then
looking at the person across thetable for me, and if they say
(28:13):
simply, I just don't agree withyou, saying, well, you're an
idiot and here's why Right.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I mean that shuts down immediately, right?
So that's part of the issue isbecause a lot of our political
discourse does in fact happen ata mass communication level,
where it's hard to have thoseengagements, whereas if you're
doing canvassing, knocking ondoors, you can get into these
(28:40):
deeper conversations where it'slike you really look at two
different voters from twodifferent sides of the political
spectrum and there is a lot incommon for most people where
there's overlap and in fact alot of the policies that someone
is supporting may in fact begood for the person who doesn't
(29:01):
think that they support thosepolicies for whatever reason,
because they're looking at itthrough a partisan frame.
But to get back to the idea ofyounger people being able to
express themselves again, Ithink you do see in polling,
focus groups, things like thatAgain frustration that certain
(29:23):
not even certain candidates, butjust like in general like our
political system isn't reallygiving voice to them and no
one's actually like effectivelyI don't want to say nobody, but
very few people are actuallycarrying what they would
consider to be their voice inthe political process, which
(29:43):
kind of is an interesting thingand again I think this applies
to all voters too is we'vealmost gotten away from I don't
want to say almost, because wereally have gotten away from,
yes policy matters like what youstand for.
So, like in an ideal world, ifyou're evaluating two candidates
, you would look at policypositions for candidate A,
policy positions for candidate B, and then you're going I like
(30:06):
this, this and this, this, thisand this, and then, on balance,
you make the decision betweenthe two.
And then we found ourselves ina position where it's a vibes
kind of based decision, right,all vibes, so you could have two
and you see this a lot duringprimary elections right, where
you don't have that partisanframe actually, so you're not
(30:29):
picking between a D or an R.
You're picking a D and a D or anR and R, and I think that gives
you some interesting insightsinto how people consume
political information, then givevoice to their own concerns, or
hope that someone else willgive voice to their own concerns
, is that, like, a lot of thosecandidates and most and two of
(30:51):
the major parties are going tohave this like 95% overlap in in
their actual positions onpolicy.
Now, vibes, that's a differentthing.
You know who's going to fightharder, who is, you know, more
combative or who's funnier,who's more energetic, or I mean
there are all sorts of thingsthat that you know people
(31:13):
evaluate as as a part of thecommunication process, so so
that all adds up to to kind ofan interesting.
Interesting thing is like, evenif you do have a candidate who
does give or who does support alot of policies that younger
voters might like, there may bethis disconnect because of that
(31:34):
vibes problem, right, likethey're just not communicating
themselves in a way that issatisfying in today's kind of
media environment.
Right, it's not snappy enough,it's not, you know, funny enough
, it's not irreverent enough,whatever it is.
So, but that's not an indictmentof any particular age group or
(31:57):
voter.
It really is just the realityof how we all consume, consume
media today.
And again, I think we can getto a place where you know we can
communicate effectively, likeas long as you're thinking about
your message and how you'redelivering that message in the
messenger, but but like I don'tknow it's.
It definitely is an interestingthing.
(32:17):
So I think it's kind of like aninconclusive thing, like I
can't give you an exact answeron like do young voters feel
like they can communicate in away that will, where they can
have debates and then and thennot get, not get canceled for
certain certain viewpoints.
I always I tend to be a littlebit more of an optimist on this
front, like you know.
(32:39):
I think, if you you're carefulabout how you phrase things,
that you can have the, thedebate, yeah and, and not find
yourself in in hot water.
But you know, there has to besome degree of empathy as well,
which I think is missing.
But again, that's like on aone-on-one sort of level.
(33:00):
It's hard to communicateempathy at a mass, on a mass
communication level.
I mean, some people can do itreally well, but for the most
part it's just like on aone-on-one conversation, you
know sitting around the, youknow lunch table and you know
your college's cafeteria orsomething.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
If you communicate with empathy, I think you'll be
okay.
But I don't know if peoplerealize that, like I'm not sure
I haven't seen you know hardnumbers on, on, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
But no, I think, I think you're onto something I
you know, with the experiencesthat we've had as as analysts
coming together to discussdifficult topics, one of the
advantages, I think, of kind ofputting us into this, this weird
experiment, if you will, youknow where you're.
You're talk about the news,you're forced to talk about the
news and now you gotta you know,see if you can't agree on it or
(33:47):
, at least you know, arrive atsome understanding of where you
think it is.
You know on on the, thepolitical bias and and how
reliable it is.
You know you don't know whereyour own blind spots are and in
this is going to lead to aquestion I'm really curious
about for you.
You know we come to the tableand we're all very clear about
(34:10):
our political positions.
You know we always have a rightlane, a left lane and a center.
You know, and everybody knows,what everybody else is.
You know where they land on thepolitical spectrum and and
that's what helps drive ourconversations in an authentic
way.
And then, oh wow, I didn't.
I would have never even thoughtabout that, you know, in that
(34:31):
particular story, because I'mjust not even.
That's not even my perspective.
So we're learning a lot aboutour own blind spots and how to
have these conversations aboutdifficult topics, but we're also
realizing at least you know,this has been my experience.
I'm a conservative, so as aconservative, you know who's an
(34:51):
analyst.
When I come to the table andI'm reading the news, I have to
constantly remind myself it'snot my job to advocate for a
position right now.
It's my job to read thisarticle and to determine whether
this article is advocating fora position.
And so you really do have towork to separate your personal
(35:16):
feelings and your personalbeliefs and your political
beliefs from being able to dothat job.
Is that something similar forwhat you do in your world of
political campaigning?
Or, because you are in theworld of political campaigning,
you are able to take your ownpersonal beliefs and political
beliefs and and allow that to bea driver for how you're working
(35:39):
with different candidates?
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Yeah, I mean, that's a really good.
That's a really good questiontoo.
So I think that there there's apretty broad spectrum of how
people in my position handlethat.
So some, some people definitely, and I think you know, I get
the sense that we may beactually on the opposite sides
(36:03):
of the political spectrum even,which is good.
I think this is really cool,you know cool way to have a
conversation because, like we're, we started out having which I
think is actually a gooddemonstration of like how you
can get to like actualinteresting information or at
least some common viewpoints, orat least have a compelling
conversation about something isyou start off like actually
(36:26):
having a conversation aboutthings without like looking
through those little, thoselenses.
But yeah, I mean I'm definitelyon the opposite side of the
political spectrum Somethingkind of handles a little bit
differently.
Like there's some who are likeideological purists, who, like I
said, you usually pick a sideright.
So if you're working on oneside there's not that much
(36:47):
variance, but there is someright Like there definitely is
some.
So you do have, you know,consultants who will only work
with like the most like, I guess, what you would consider the
most progressive candidates,whereas you know some
consultants will work withanyone on the democratic side of
the aisle and some will workwith more centrist candidates or
(37:12):
whatever.
I personally think, like I do, Idon't believe, generally
speaking for the most part, thatmy specific personal viewpoint
on things is super relevant toworking with clients, because I
(37:33):
think if you take a step back,you realize that you agree again
with 95% of what anybody issaying in any particular race
and then, at least from myperspective, you try to work
with people that you feel aregoing to do the right thing, are
going to advocate in the rightways and actually be able to
(37:55):
affect the kind of change thatyou want to see, as opposed to
sometimes bluster.
There's a little bit and thatcan be again very satisfying,
but it's not always the best wayto get stuff done.
So from my perspective I willsay that we always kind of look
(38:17):
through the lens of certainvalues, like lines we don't
cross, generally speaking.
But I think beyond that, mypersonal political views are not
especially relevant.
I mean, what we're bringing tothe table, as Emily is, we're
professionals, right, so we haveto work with our clients to
(38:40):
develop a message that we thinkis going to help that.
So that's the other thing whereI think this comes in, because
the way that I think about theworld, in terms of my own
personal political views, maynot be the most effective way to
convince someone on the otherside of the aisle even that my
candidate is the right candidatefor the job.
Oftentimes it wouldn't be rightBecause I think again, if you
(39:03):
get into your own sort ofhyperpartisan brain, I'd be so
happy.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I have a friend who is a lawyerhere I'm located in Savannah,
georgia and he contacted me.
This was several years ago.
He said hey, I know someone whois running for Congress for the
first district and I think youtwo really should be in contact
with each other because I thinkyou have a lot in common,
(39:29):
despite the fact that you are ondifferent sides of the
political aisle just as far asyour moral foundations and all
of those things.
So I was like, ok, yeah, I'llchat with her.
And we met several times andmutually respectful, had a lot
(39:51):
of really good, meaningfulconversations and, at the end of
the day, yeah, I mean, eventhough we could agree on some of
those really core values thatwe were talking about, when it
came to, ok, how are we going toexpress those values?
What type of actions, what typeof policies would I support in
(40:14):
order to bring that to light?
That's where we saw the vastdifferences and it ended up
being that we had to separatepart ways because we couldn't
get to that point where we couldarrive at the agreements,
everything from certainterminology to use to who to
(40:37):
reach out to, to haveconversations Because, of course
, from my perspective, I'm likelet's get you in front of some
conservative focus groups andpick their brains and see what
is it that?
And at the end of the day itjust didn't work.
And nothing negative toward heror her beliefs.
(40:58):
It was just a reallyinteresting experience to have
that.
That's why I'm so fascinated bywhat you do in your sphere and
whether or not that is a part ofit having to separate your own
ideology from who you're workingwith.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Yeah, it definitely is.
I mean, the other thing that is, I think, worth noting too is
we're not building candidatesfrom scratch.
We don't go into a laboratoryand take a drop of this, a drop
of that and then put it in amachine and out pop some
candidate who's in exact.
Yeah, like 3D printed Right.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Here's your perfect liberal.
Here's your perfectconservative right.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Right, you're going to set all the right things and
you're not going to have anyproblems whatsoever, and you're
going to be totally personablewhile also very thoughtful.
So that's not a real thing,right?
So these are people who alsocome to the table with their own
ideas, so it's not like we are.
There are moments where youwork with candidates and they're
(42:00):
like I'm thinking really hardabout X issue.
I need some ideas about howbest to approach this.
Here's the outcome.
Here are the values that I wantto bring to solving this problem
, but I just don't know the bestway to get there.
So this is why I have advisorsaround me, whereas sometimes a
(42:20):
candidate will come and say Ihave a very, very specific
viewpoint on something, and eventhough it's focus grouped and
you do the polling and you talkto voters and it's maybe not the
best thing to be talking about,but at the end of the day, the
candidate is the candidate,right?
And our job is to give the bestpossible advice.
(42:41):
And then, if there's somethingthat they feel strongly about,
which is really honestly, theyshould right.
They should feel strongly aboutthings.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
I would hope so.
Yeah, it's not just A passion.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
Right, exactly, it's not just simply exercising and
saying what I think you want meto say.
I have to sell my ideas and mythoughts and myself to you.
So in those circumstances again, we'll put aside even our
professional advice and thendevelop whatever framework to
(43:14):
best deliver that specificviewpoint or message as well.
So there's a little bit ofhaving to take a step back, and
you cannot get too wrapped up inhow you feel emotionally too,
because also you're not a focusgroup of one either.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
I mean, if you're just doing this day in and day
out, you need to get out andtalk to other people, right,
like not living your own headwith this stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:36):
I imagine that's a tough balancing act, though, for
politicians the strugglebetween saying what you think
your constituency wants to hearversus saying what you actually
believe.
I imagine that's reallydifficult.
How to balance that, because,as someone who consumes, I have
(44:00):
a healthy, I think, skepticism,for when I'm listening to
political candidates, I'm alwaysin the back of my mind
wondering are you telling mewhat you think I want to hear,
or are you being real with meright now and I imagine a lot of
people feel the same way,especially in today's climate
with politicians, and they don'texactly have the best
(44:21):
reputations with things that arehappening in the political
sphere.
So do you ever have candidatesthat have that conversation with
you, that balance between ohman, but I know my constituency
wants this, but I want that, andhow do I rectify that?
Speaker 2 (44:40):
Yeah, I mean, that is a conversation that you have
and I think, at the end of theday, I think that's a good
question and this is sort ofwhere I kind of like we draw
lines on certain things is thatSometimes, like a constituency
will want something that isEntirely in Contravention to
(45:04):
what you believe democracy isall about, like the, the
fundamental fabric of thiscountry, right, the idea that we
have Elections, that theresults of the elections then
pick the winners, like it or not, like it or not, and that
Calling that, calling thosesorts of things into question,
is extraordinarily dangerousbecause it it undermines
(45:29):
everything on every side of youknow, middle, right, center,
whatever it is last way, yeah,undermines everything.
So so, in terms of like issueslike that where we're talking
about like the very fabric ofour democracy and we don't run
into this a lot with our clients, but, like I know it, that
happens and I hear it from fromother people too it's like we
(45:49):
just don't like you can't likethat.
That's my position is, like you, just you cannot.
So, even if your constituencywants to hear like you call into
question something that is,that it's gonna be fundamentally
, you know, have a deleteriouseffect on Democracy or elections
, or or our institutions.
Don't do it.
Yeah that's the area that wekind of draw the line with
(46:11):
everything else, though.
It's like, alright, like arena,talk about, you know, fiscal
policy or monetary policy, youknow really like boring kind of
stuff sometimes.
But From from thoseperspectives, right, like, I
think there's always a way totake what the candidate believes
and then take, look at when theelectorate is and and develop a
(46:34):
frame that helps people getthrough the door.
So this is actually aconversation that we have with
with a lot of our clients.
It's like okay, what areas dowe have to meet people where
they are?
And then what areas?
do we have to lead, yeah, andyou can't do it all all the time
right.
You cannot lead people from oneplace to another in each issue,
because it's just not how.
I mean, there's not an infiniteamount of time and resources to
(46:59):
do that, so so you have to makedecisions about the things that
you're going to try to leadpeople, pick your issues and
then and then try to shift thethe overton window on those
types of things, and sometimesthey're tiny shifts.
I mean, sometimes it's not thatbig a leap from what you think
is the best thing, basicallywhat you think is the best thing
, based on on all of the expertsand policy and research that
(47:22):
you've done and what theelectorate wants to hear.
So I think, again, it's so.
That is a conversation that wedo have.
It's like how do how do we getthere?
But I do think a lot of it hasto do not so much with the, the
core substance of a message, butthe framing of the message that
makes it can make a world ofdifference and how people are
hearing what you're, what you'resaying.
(47:42):
So I think there is a way to doit.
We've we've done it, you know,we do it all the time, you know,
just trying to reconcile thoseviews, because it's again, and
it really is about taking thatstep back and saying, okay, I
hear what you're saying and Ihear what the can of E is saying
, and it's like are they reallyeven so different?
Though, right, they even sodifferent?
(48:03):
And then, most of the most ofthe time, the answer is no, it's
really not so different.
It's just like let's tweak theframe With which we're talking
about this particular issue.
Yeah, I think people are gonnaget it.
So that's.
That is something that we dotalk about frequently.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yeah, yeah, I appreciate your point that you
made as well.
I mean it, at some point you dohave to think about, you know,
the topics of the day and andwhat are the constituents you
know Believing in and what arethey talking about and what do
they want to hear?
And you know, I know, at leastfrom my point of view, when I
hear someone and people who youknow, I've known for a very,
(48:39):
very long time, you know fellowconservatives that they, you
know they, they're stillinsisting that the 2020 election
was stolen and I'm like, can weplease just stop, stop.
Let's just, you know, and so ifthere's a politician that wants
to feed into that for me, I, Iimmediately will just close my
(49:02):
ears because, fundamentally, Ithink there's something wrong
with perpetuating, you know thatidea.
So I think it's, you know it's,I don't know, at least on my
side of the aisle, I think wehave a lot of challenges moving
forward with our politiciansbecause they're having to make
some hard decisions on, you know, are, am I going to placate
(49:24):
this very loud group over hereor am I going to, you know, come
over here and and talk withthis group?
You know, that's one of thethings that when I was watching
the midterm elections and thenAll the conversations that were
surrounding what was happeninghere in Georgia governor camp,
you know, and in Raffensperger,and then you know the thing that
(49:46):
happened with Trump, I willhave to say I was so incredibly
relieved when I was okay, mygovernor has, kind of like,
stood his ground, our secretaryof state stood his ground and
and, and I was very happy, youknow, with him doing that.
But there were a lot ofconservatives who are in the
(50:07):
Trump camp who are not, you know, happy with that at all.
So it's it's just from a myperspective.
It's really interesting lookingat the candidates that are
coming out and what are thechoices that they are making on
On who they want to, I guess,speak to, you know, and and kind
of get them in their camp.
(50:29):
It's just it's what a time,what a crazy time.
If you've read my book crackingthe rich code, you know it is
chock full of fantastic advicefrom top thought leaders and
super successful entrepreneursfrom around the world.
How would you like to be amember of an exclusive community
(50:52):
that provides that same how-tocontent from those same leaders?
What if you were able to attendmember only live events and
interact with them.
I'd like to invite you to jointhe rich code club.
It will change the way youthink about yourself, your money
and your life.
It's the only social mediaplatform purely focused on
(51:15):
helping you grow.
Join the rich code club todayfor free by clicking on the link
in the show notes.
Speaker 2 (51:21):
Yeah, it's definitely interesting and there are a lot
of challenges, and the onething that I like to say is like
anger is easy, right, that'slike a very, it's an activating
emotion, right.
So it's like, once you tap intothat anger, it's, it's easy,
it's a little bit addicting.
Yeah, I can kind of bring youback to To that place where
people feel aggrieved or likesomething Quite go right or
something was wrong during theelection and all of that.
(51:43):
But you know what was no is nottrue, right, everything it was.
It was probably one of the mostsecure elections and you know
the history of elections.
People are watching in a waythat was like never done before,
so so clearly like there wasn'tan issue, but like, again, that
anger overlaid I mean, nobodylikes to lose I mean that's,
(52:04):
that's a big thing.
And you know, it's kind of cometo feel so existential that
like the stakes Are so we feellike they're so high that like
it is easy to tap into thatanger To your point though it is
possible to push, push back andlike, admittedly, I was
definitely rooting for the otherside in the end.
(52:24):
Yes, but I will say this like Ido think, you know, the governor
probably did get, at least inthe general election, a little
bit of credit, even from someDemocrats, if you look at the
numbers that you know.
He did take a stand.
Now Do they agree with him onany other policy?
Maybe not, but like, there aresome Very fundamental things in
our political system that Ithink are are just you can be
(52:45):
inviolable, right, you cannot,you just should not touch it,
and they're being violated everyday, unfortunately In some ways
.
So it's, it's a tough, it is atough way you, you, you, you,
you, you, to conduct campaignsbecause I'm sure, actually, well
, I don't want to say I'm sureI'm positive, and you hear this,
(53:08):
you know, in the, in the backchannels of you know, and sort
of consultant, consultant, world, right, like Candidates on the
other side of the aisle, like alot of them want to be talking
about something else.
Speaker 1 (53:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:21):
About something else and and they just feel like they
can't, you know, and, and yousee, it's like toxic, it is very
toxic in in the generalelection to still be doing the
election denial stuff, you know.
So it's, but like everyone'slike, well, how do we get away
from this?
How do we get away from this?
Or we're gonna start movingaway from, and then they just
can't, for some reason orsomething prevents them from.
(53:42):
I mean, it's really an, youknow, an electoral issue right
there, afraid of losing theirseat, exactly, and no one's
ready to take that, that plunge.
Or they, you know, dip their toein the water and they get, you
know, they get bitten by thepiranha and then they Well,
don't want to do that, so it'sum, I don't envy, envy that
(54:03):
position that a lot of folks inthe other side of the aisle are
in, other than to say that, likeI think at some point, like
there has to be a decision, justbe like we're not gonna do this
anymore.
Like we're, we have a bunch ofcore issues that we want to
focus on, so let's do that.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
And again, I'm not saying I agree with them or I
think they're even necessarilygood for America, but like I
think, it's better for Americathan debating the very
Foundations of our whether ornot we want democracy in this
country, because I think theanswer is yes, we do, because
the alternative is not good andyou know, and to your point you
know, about Anger and thoseheightened emotions that you
(54:40):
know that they certainly are adriver and when we've seen this,
you know, Just looking at the,the media that we're consuming,
that falls below this line ofyou know what we consider to be
high quality news and thenthere's just so much that falls
below that line into the lowerquality news and I'm there's
logical fallacies at hominem.
(55:02):
And you know, boogie man, youknow, and it's us versus them
mentality and it's just, andit's that driver.
And if you're someone, that isall you're doing is you're
consuming.
You know those hyper partisantype of Media sources and you
know, on either side, because wesee it on on both sides, you
(55:23):
know, of course you become evenmore embedded in that identity
of you know what it means to bea Progressive, or, you know, or
a liberal, or a Republican, youknow, or a, you know a, a
patriot.
You know those labels, thatthat we like to call ourselves
and and we have no idea Aboutthe conversations that are
(55:44):
happening on the other side andit's just, it's Confirmation
bias all over the place.
It's it's a really difficultthing to try to Transcend.
You know, getting people out oftheir.
You know they're embedded.
They really do get embedded inthose identities and and I'm
sure it's it's very difficultfor candidates.
(56:07):
Do you often give them adviceon Particular sources that would
be better to stay away fromversus sources that would be
better to?
Yeah, this, this will be a goodsource to get your word out.
You know, do y'all do that aswell with with your advice, that
you get them absolutely.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
I think there are a number of factors that go into
it.
So there are certain candidateswho Are just really good.
So everyone kind of brings adifferent skill set to the table
too.
So you have some, somecandidates who are really good
with you know an interview, somethat are really good on the
stump, you know, at rallies andthings like that, some that are
(56:49):
just like maybe not so good atthose two things but, but you
put them in a diner with a groupof voters and they're gonna
knock it out of the park becausethey can connect on that
one-on-one Level.
So you kind of have to know whoyou're, who you're working with
At that point.
So in some cases, like ourinclination is like if you have
to win you know a generalelection in, in most places, I
(57:13):
have no problem with candidatesgoing on news, you know, or
engaging with news sources thatare or not even necessarily like
news sources, but also like I.
Speaker 1 (57:27):
When I say news, I mean also commentary too,
because it like oh yeah, oh yeah, that's just, that's like the
vast majority of it.
It's right.
Speaker 2 (57:34):
Right, it's not really hard.
Hard news it's.
It's a commentary masqueradingas hard news, and so I'll say,
like you, absolutely can.
You just have to be preparedfor it.
You have to not get sort of aninto an emotional tangle over it
, because that, like the job ofthe host and I think this is
this is one of the things thatlike was interesting to learn.
You know, getting into thisbusiness is that Journalists,
(57:56):
commentators, you know, opinioncolumnists, they're all they all
have a job to do and and thatjob is not my job, right,
they're not.
They're not here to make mylife easier, yeah.
Or the candidates life easier,right.
And so once you realize thatyou're like, okay, like, can you
really get offended by, like, anegative news story here,
negative news story there?
It's like, no, they're doingtheir job.
(58:18):
Now the question is do you wantyour Narrative to be a part of
that story or do you want to becompletely left out of it?
And I think there are argumentsfor most of the time yes, you do
want your narrative to be apart of that story, even if it's
gonna have a negative tilt, aslong as you go in there with
good humor and you engage ingood faith and have have your
(58:40):
answers and viewpoints reallysharp, then I think you're Okay,
like I think it's okay and youshould do that.
There are times where I wouldsay no, like do not engage with
the particular news source orcommentator Strictly because,
like they have showed Repeatedbad faith, like they're just not
(59:02):
interested, like they'llcontinue to interrupt you,
they'll try to, you know, createsome sort of Issue and like, if
you're not ready for that, thenand or or it's just, like it's
so blatantly ridiculous thatthat it's almost insurmountable,
no matter how good you are inan interview.
Then I would say, like you knowwhat Not worth going on there,
(59:23):
because they're just their.
Their agenda is is very clear.
It's not absolutely.
Roll roll over you.
There was an interesting thing,though Recently was with, was
it Gavin Newsom on was Hannity.
I think that interview wasreally interesting, right, so
like I think, in that case, likethe, I Mean it, but again, like
(59:46):
I don't, I don't love Hannity,right, like obviously right,
yeah, yeah, the conventionalwisdom you would think would be
like maybe that's not the bestuse of your time.
Exactly, exactly.
But I think, like the the thingis like if, if you can do it
and go in there and keep yourcool and I think avenues and did
a great job of doing that.
And like Pete Buttigieg does itall the time in the Democratic
(01:00:07):
side of the aisle as well on FoxNews, you know he's he's very
measured and is able to delivera message Like that.
And again, it depends on, like,what position you're into.
So like being like a cabinetsecretary or a governor or
senator or member of Congress isAlso different than being the
president of the United Statestoo.
(01:00:27):
Like there's a certain likedignity at the presidential
level that, like you know, youcan actually pick and choose a
little bit more.
But lower down on the ladder Ithink you can be a little bit
more more flexible and perhapsadventurous with stuff like that
.
But but the Hannity episode Imean you have to like there are
people who listen to Hannity whohave not heard the Democratic
(01:00:48):
viewpoint on anything Right, andit's probably a good thing that
they do actually hear that.
Whether or not they buy it atthe end totally different
question.
But so I wouldn't say there'slike a hard and fast rule that
we approach things with, but wedo have the conversation I'm
always inclined to like the moreyou can engage, the better off
you're gonna be.
It's only because you're gonnabe reaching people, and that
(01:01:09):
also is a function of howfragmented our media landscape
is.
So it's not like you can justgo on cronkite Right and your
center the country anymore.
You have to like figure outlike, okay, well, you got.
You have some people watchingCNN, some people are watching
MSVC, some people are watchingFox and you know on the cable
and and still that's All ofthose combined, still a small
(01:01:32):
fraction of the overallpopulation of the country.
And then you have some peoplewho are still reading newspapers
, but then a lot of people arelooking at their phones or, you
know, checking.
Well, it's not what is?
it.
Twitter, x, x, twitter,whatever it's X now.
X Twitter.
It's like, literally, but nowis X the platform formerly known
(01:01:52):
as Twitter.
But people are looking at their, their platform.
So it's it's a matter of oftrying to be everywhere, right,
and that's.
And that's even podcasts, right, like you know.
They're really great.
I mean, you have a loyalaudience of people who listen to
you.
It's great to be on podcasts,you know, if you, if you can
manage to do that.
(01:02:13):
So I am inclined to say, like,go on everything, don't be super
defensive about stuff and justget out there, just know what
you're getting into.
Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
Yeah, exactly, I'm prepared for that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
Yeah, I gotta tell you, matt, this has been, at
least for me.
I don't know about youlisteners, but for me this has
been an awesome conversation.
I really enjoyed this.
I can't believe we've actuallybeen talking, for I mean, it's
been a good hour now already.
That time has just flown by.
I do want to go ahead and wrapup, but before I do, I wanted to
(01:02:44):
ask your opinion or or if youhave any advice for our
listeners.
We are getting into 2024 and wealready know election season is
.
It's here.
Okay, I'm just gonna say it'shere.
There's no gearing up for 2024.
We're already geared up.
So what type of advice wouldyou have for our listeners, you
(01:03:06):
know, going into this nextelection cycle, as far as the
being consumers of communication, you know, what advice do you
have for them?
As far as you know how tolisten, what to listen to, what
to listen for, anything likethat.
Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, I think there are two,two sort of parallel tracks of
advice that that I would, that Iwould give.
So the first is communicatingin your personal life around
some of these issues, becauseit's going to be present like
every day for a lot of us in alot of different places, whether
it's the workplace or at home,or with neighbors or friends.
(01:03:48):
And then there's there's theconsuming, the news, the news
piece, like, like you said, andI think in both of those
parallel tracks, just from aconsumer perspective it's, it's
best to acknowledge or observeyour emotion when you're reading
something or hearing somethingand take a minute and be like
(01:04:10):
okay, like I'm angry about this.
All right, I see that.
Why.
Like what, what about thismakes me angry.
And then if you don't have agood answer to that or or you
know, or missing a part of theof the puzzle, like go look
somewhere else for for an answer.
Look, look in a place that youwouldn't normally, you know, in
(01:04:32):
a new source that you normallywouldn't consume, you know, try
to try to figure, figure it out.
Also, like there are, I do I dowant to just say this to, and
I'm sure you see this all thetime too, like there are just
like junk sources of informationon the.
Oh, absolutely junk, likeabsolute junk, and no amount of
like, both sizing, like oh well,this side or that side is ever
(01:04:53):
going to make those outlets anybetter.
It's just junk, it's garbage,it's, it doesn't.
There's nothing in there that's, that's going to be any of use.
And and if you're, you know,really digging down to the
bottom of the Google barrel,there you're not going to find
anything of use, right?
So?
But there are again, like, forbetter or for worse, like most
of the major news outlets outthere have some degree of
(01:05:17):
credibility, credibility andeditorial standards that you can
kind of count on.
And you know, looking at thedifferent bents of different
things, you know you can, youcan find information.
So I would say, like, look inplaces that you wouldn't
normally look, but avoid likethe really like crazy, like
anything that sounds likeexcessively nuts for the most
part could be totally nonsense.
(01:05:40):
So take a minute before you goahead and, and you know, slam
that share button on Facebookand, and you know, share
whatever meme or thing that thatyou see there on onto your own
timeline.
So that's, that's the advicethat I would give is like, kind
of observe your emotions alittle bit on on how you're
responding to things because Ithink, like we, we it's so
(01:06:03):
automatic and we're readingsomething that like you feel the
anger, but then you don'tactually like recognize that
you're angry about it, you just,and then you know that thumb is
moving toward that, that sharebutton that's right, that's
right.
Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
There's there's something in that article that
is causing you to to feel acertain way.
So to be able to kind ofanalyze that for a little bit
and look at it like what is itabout this, I think that's
fantastic advice.
I mean, that's what we have todo as soon as we find that.
You know what?
I feel a bit triggered at themoment.
What's what's going on here?
Let's take this apart.
(01:06:38):
I see, look at the languagejust being used.
There's a lot of politicalpositioning happening in here,
and so I think that's wiseadvice.
As consumers of communication,we just have to be mindful of
what it is that we're taking in.
You're right, there's a lot ofjunk out there.
We got to be mindful of that.
I don't think having a slightbias is inherently bad.
(01:07:02):
I mean, that's what makesdemocracy right.
I mean, we will havedifferences of ideas of how to
move forward with certain youknow policies, but that's the
beauty of it.
We should be able to talk aboutthose things.
You know, having differentperspectives is critical in a
democracy, I think.
But yeah, if we can stay awayfrom the hyper partisan stuff, I
(01:07:23):
think we'll all be better forit.
So, matt, thank you so much forfor coming on the show and
sharing your wisdom and yourexperience in this field.
I think political communicationis just endlessly fascinating.
I'm just so happy that we wereable to have this conversation,
and I know the listeners got alot out of it as well.
(01:07:46):
It's just, I've truly, trulyenjoyed having you here.
Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
Yeah, thank you for having me.
I really enjoyed it too.
Speaker 1 (01:07:54):
So anybody who is interested in following up with
you or learning more about yourorganization, how can they do so
?
Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
We're using LinkedIn a lot these days, so you can
find me on LinkedIn MattCreighton, k-r-a-y-t-o-n.
It's an unusual spelling so Ithink I might be the only Matt
Creighton spell that way on theplanet.
So there you go, super easy tofind.
You can also find Albalytics,which has, you know, we have
some more sort of corporatefocused insights on various
(01:08:24):
communication issues on there onthat feed.
So you can find us on LinkedIn,on the website and and you know
, we're starting to get into thethreads to a little bit.
So if you yeah, that's.
Speaker 1 (01:08:36):
That's going to be an interesting one in it.
Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
Yeah we'll see if it's got staying power.
You know we'll see, but yeah,we're giving it a shot.
So so yeah, those are, thoseare the spots on on on the web
that you can find us, and andagain, thank you so much for
having me on.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
Absolutely, and I'll make sure that we have all those
links in the show notes foreveryone.
All right, everybody.
I hope you enjoyed today's show.
I know I did, and I hope all ofyou have a wonderful rest of
your day.
All right, y'all take care now.
Thanks for listening.
(01:09:11):
If you enjoyed this episode andyou'd like to help support the
podcast, please share it withothers, post about it on social
media or leave a rating and areview.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.