# Belief System **Chauvinism**: Undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged. %% Seen in this Comment: Hasan's core argument is a form of intellectual chauvinism that I see absolutely *everywhere*: here's this great system (democracy), it works for so many areas, and I personally understand it pretty well --- why shouldn't it run everything? Isnt' that so shocking that it doesn't? No. Science isn't democratic, markets aren't democratic, the legal system isn't democratic, the military isn't democratic, a household isn't democratic, the educational system isn't democratic, and engineers don't use democracy to build planes. Because it doesn't work for those things. Democracy is a pragmatic achievement more than a glowing ideal; the best way we have to generate stability, in a modern society, in the face of competing interests. But that doesn't mean it can help us understand the universe, or appreciate art. Influencers who only understand politics and think we should democratize everything are like Heritage Foundation spokesmen who treat the free market as a glowing ideal --- and entrepreneurs as avatars of that ideal --- instead of a pragmatic system that works for X but not Y. %% %%  Hi, so I have a master's degree in business, and today I'm going to use it to analyze the marketing strategy of Kamala Harris campaign, and ultimately why I believe if she continues with the horrible marketing strategy she has been employing, Why she will ultimately end up losing the presidency to Donald Trump. So obviously this is a highly emotional and contentious topic for a lot of people. But the reason why I did wanna speak on it is that I think there's a lot of parallels to be drawn between the marketing of a product and the marketing of a political candidate. And while I wish that wasn't the case, because I wish that politics was less of an exercise in personal branding and more of a deeper discussion on substantive policies that will actually be impacting. The everyday lives of human beings. That just simply is not the case. So, and although I'm not American, I am Canadian. Your elections have consequences for the entire world. So I think anybody that wants to put their two cents in is allowed to. So based on my objective analysis, I believe that Kamala Harris's campaign is built upon very flawed marketing strategy that is very heavily relying on superficial social media engagement, identity politics, and a highly So the first marketing strategy that Kamala Harris is employing, and we are all collectively experiencing it, whether we realize it or not, is the Blank Slate Strategy. This is essentially where she is being intentionally vague and ambiguous in the language that she uses and the way that she appears publicly in order to take advantage of the psychological phenomenon of projection, because if you are extremely vague and generic and say, say some of the right words without specifically committing to policies or being very clear about what your values are. Human beings will simply project onto you what they want to see. Progressives will see her as extremely progressive and forward thinking. More moderate voters will see her as somebody that's a little bit more measured and you can kind of see reasoning behind why they're doing it. I don't think it's completely stupid, but I think it is doomed to fail because although it is working in the short term, she's going to eventually be put into scenarios like debates about. where she will be forced to take firm stances on topics, and because she hasn't done that intellectual work to decide where she really lands on these important issues, she may end up looking unqualified for the job. So the next issue with the blank slate strategy is the only reason it's even remotely effective, is specifically because she is solely relying on identity politics. And although I completely understand and respect the excitement associated with nominating the first woman president, The first black woman president, the first South Asian American black woman president, and that's something that is exciting and something that will understandably galvanize a certain demographic of the population that will vote for her solely based on that alone. Do not believe it is a substitute. For an actionable policy platform that will actually impact the lives of the American people because people are currently suffering economically And they want to understand and feel secure in the fact that you have a plan to ameliorate their suffering So it seems like her campaign is relying on the sole fact that people will be so excited to vote for the first black woman That they will be willing to overlook the fact that she doesn't have a true vision for the country I do not believe that it's something that should be relied upon, especially in the context of the United States, where the election will be decided based upon tens of thousands of votes in specific swing states. And the other issue with this lack of a policy platform is it leaves her very vulnerable to attacks from Donald Trump, because they can project any image onto her that they want, and she has no reasonable way to articulate a defense to them, because she doesn't really stand for anything. So the next issue that I have with the Kamala Harris campaign is Campaign is they seem to be very heavily relying on social media engagement as well as celebrity endorsements to create this sort of image of widespread popularity. The issue with using social media as a way to evaluate the current success of the Kamala Harris campaign is that social media metrics can be extremely inflated and very misleading TikTok, for example, are people under the age of 18. They will not be voting, and it's also further inflated by the fact that many people on TikTok are in international countries who just enjoy watching the politics for the show of it, like me. But we will not be voting in the election, so it can lead her campaign to be in a place where they are overestimating their grassroots support when in reality they don't have it because it doesn't really exist. So the danger is that this perceived popularity may not translate into actual votes. And her campaign's obsession with social media and viral moments and celebrity culture is further illustrated by the decisions they're making by having Megan Thee Stallion twerking on stage, or thinking it was a good idea to have Oprah Winfrey appear at the DNC talking about the middle class, because they clearly do not have an understanding that the average American and average person has Absolutely despises celebrities, does not want to be talked down to from them, and will not be voting based upon who they endorse. And I'll go even further that I think it does the complete opposite of what they're trying to accomplish. The mere presence of Oprah Winfrey will directly result in people voting against Kamala Harris because of how much people despise celebrity culture and despise billionaires like Oprah Winfrey and everything that she stands for. And if I was to summarize the core problem with the personal brand of Kamala Harris, And something that I think will continue to bubble underneath the surface of her campaign until inevitably explodes. It is an authenticity issue. And the perfect example of this is the glaring contradiction of the fact that Kamala Harris is using TikTok as a way to influence young people to vote for her. To make it appear like she cares about their issues and that she hears them. When in reality she is part of the administration that introduced legislation to ban the app. Which is the most insane violation of freedom of speech I have seen in my entire lifetime. And if she does become president in November, come January, the app is set to be taken away from the app store forever. They literally banned the app because of lobbying from Mark Zuckerberg, because instead of spending money on his own app, improving Instagram, he would rather take out his competitor altogether. And because we have a completely corrupt government. He's able to do that. So I can't even imagine the fact that she's been able to run this campaign and has not been questioned about this glaring contradiction. And this brings us, of course, to the most obvious question, which is why hasn't she been questioned about this, or really anything important? And the reason is that her campaign officials know that she has a historical tendency To say extremely stupid things and make very dumb gaffes when she goes off script. When she's reading off script, she's good, she's charismatic, she hits her points. When she's asked a question that is in any way she's unprepared to answer, she makes huge mistakes. Here are a few that she's done before. At one point, she said three times Three times, in three separate videos, that 220 million Americans died from COVID. She obviously meant to say, not that, because there's 300 million Americans. I think we would know if they all died from COVID. Another time, she was visiting the DMC, which is the demilitarized zone in South Korea, and And she praised the Republic of North Korea and said that she wanted to be allies with them, and she didn't realize that it was South Korea. And then she obviously says word salads a lot, where we don't understand the context of all in which she lives and where she came for her pretend to be. One of my favorite quotes from her, she said, It is time for us to do what we have been doing. And that time is every day, every day. It is time. And this is just the reality. She is not good speaking off the cuff. She knows it. And her campaign knows it. If you need further proof, let's watch how she answered a very simple question on inflation. Um, and also what else are you going to do to fix this problem with inflation? All right. Thank you. Well, let's start with this. Prices have gone up. And families and individuals are dealing with the realities of, of the, that bread costs more, that gas costs more. And we have to understand what that means. That's about the cost of living going up. And the reason why I'm showing you this is so you understand the fragility of such a tightly controlled image. When she's inevitably put into a high pressure environment, like a debate or an interview where she has to answer questions and she can't articulate herself, this crafted idea that she's an extremely competent person gets shattered immediately. So if Kamala Harris really wants to win this election, she needs to radically and quickly move away from the superficial. hollow rhetoric that she's been engaging in and put together a substantial policy platform and articulate a very clear vision that she has for the country. If she does, I not only think she will win the presidency, but all three branches of government potentially laying the groundwork for actual transformational change. And if she doesn't, I think she will simply become a cautionary tale of someone who sought the highest office in the land. Without actually fully grasping the weight of its responsibilities. And she also has to sit down for some press interviews because it's making her look very entitled that she received the nomination, not getting one vote and won't even talk to the American people directly when Donald Trump is. %%