The Michael Fanone Show
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com [https://michaelfanone.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7] Look at the candidates breaking through this cycle and they don’t line up. One’s practically a democratic socialist. One’s a moderate who had kind words for some of Trump’s tariffs. One wraps progressive politics in scripture. One’s a buttoned-up senator who barely does interviews. One’s the governor of the biggest state in the country, running flat out for president. Put them in a room and they’d argue about half of what matters. And yet every one of them cracked the same code — the thing that actually decides elections now. Most of the people in Washington paid to understand politics still won’t say it out loud. Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes put a word on it recently. The word is attention. Hayes wrote a whole book arguing that attention has become the ground American politics stands on — the money, the ads, the endorsements all sit on top of it. Once you see it that way, this whole confusing election snaps into focus. So let me walk you through them, because each one is solving the same problem a completely different way. Start with the old rule, the one that ran campaigns for a generation. Find a candidate with a clean biography — a lawyer, a veteran, somebody who rose through the institutions and looks the part. Sit them down and make them dial for dollars seven hours a day, because the money buys TV, TV buys name recognition, and name recognition wins. That was ninety percent of the game. It’s dead now, because what the money was really buying was attention, and broadcast TV no longer delivers it. The candidates breaking through found other ways to earn it. Here’s how. Graham Platner, Maine. He runs an oyster farm that barely turns a profit and sells most of its catch to his mother’s restaurant. A year ago nobody outside his town knew his name. Now he’s the Democratic nominee for Senate, and the sitting governor — Janet Mills, with Schumer and the whole party behind her — suspended her own campaign and never came back. Platner was, in a real sense, cast. A group went looking for someone to run in Maine and ran it like an audition, not a recruitment. They weren’t hunting for the most accomplished person in the state; they were hunting for charisma, the raw ability to grab people and hold them. They found a former enlisted Marine with a populist streak and bet on the talent, not the résumé. It worked, because Platner carries something you can’t fake — a real belief that the system is hollow at the core, that the institutions failed because they failed him. People can feel that it’s real. The catch is real too: when you recruit a guy precisely because he has an anti-institutional life story, you also get a guy who never spent twenty years watching his every step. Out come the old Reddit posts, the tattoo questions, the baggage a cautious careerist never would’ve accumulated. High-risk bet. But remember what the safe choice got them last time — in 2020 they ran the textbook candidate against Susan Collins, clean record, up in every poll, and she lost by nine. The cautious play isn’t safe. It just fails quietly. Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan. Almost Platner’s opposite. Not outside the institution — a Rhodes scholar with an M.D. and a Ph.D., a former public health official who taught at Columbia. The brass ring of American credentialing is on his hand. And he’s just as good at commanding attention, which proves the point: this isn’t about being an outsider. It’s about knowing how to own a room. Watch how he rose — he leaned into a single issue that, for an engaged primary electorate, runs like a live wire. When a controversial figure rallied with him, his opponents and outside groups attacked, and in attacking they put the exact issue he wanted at the center of the race. They handed him the spotlight while trying to take it away. That’s the new physics the old playbook never accounted for: an attack is a gift when it plants you on the side of the fight your voters care about most. James Talarico, Texas. He breaks every pattern I just described. Not the furthest left or right, no single explosive issue. A former teacher with fairly standard progressive politics — but they sit inside a Christian moral framework he clearly actually believes. You could cast him as the idealistic young pastor rooting corruption out of a complicated church. Turns out that’s a superpower right now, because what he’s tapping isn’t a hunger for radicalism. It’s a hunger for decency. He beat a viral-video star in his own primary by being authentic instead of performative. His general-election opponents are attacking him for being too nice, too soft for Texas — running cruelty against kindness — and they may be walking straight into the fight he wanted. The appetite for an actual decent human being in the middle of this era is a lot bigger than the cynics think. Jon Ossoff, Georgia. Does the opposite of everyone else. They’re all playing a volume game — yes to everything, everywhere. Ossoff is scarce. Careful. Barely touches the long podcast circuit. He builds anticipation by being hard to get. Here’s what makes him interesting: he used to make documentaries about international corruption, so the man actually knows how to build compelling video about a complicated subject. You know an Ossoff clip the second it starts — the visual grammar is his. Compare that to Raphael Warnock, same party, same state, who everyone assumed would be the rising star and who’s putting out content that looks like a Senate press conference in front of a wall of flags. Completely different command of the medium. Ossoff also figured out how to tell the corruption story — so overwhelming it leaves most of us speechless — by routing it through the system itself instead of one man, and by giving the other side its due inside his own argument. That’s a hard thing to do and a powerful one. Gavin Newsom, California. Playing this game for the presidency. If Ossoff wins by being scarce, Newsom wins by being everywhere. He made one of the most interesting attention bets on this list: omnipresence. Yes to everything. His own podcast, where he’ll sit across from hard-right figures most of his party wouldn’t share a microphone with — going places specifically because it’s strange to see him there. A few years ago I’d have been skeptical; a handsome California governor with a stack of old scandals isn’t obviously what the party’s hungry for. But the reps did their work. He’s gotten better, faster than his rivals, because he’s constantly in rooms where things can go wrong, and that volume builds a comfort you can’t rehearse. Right now the prediction markets have him as the 2028 frontrunner, and a big part of how he got there is that he stopped trying to be the poll-tested version of himself and started showing up as a guy willing to walk into hostile territory and have the argument. He’s reaching for something genuinely hard — to hold two opposite ideas at once: I’ll be your brawler, and we can disagree out in the open and keep talking anyway. He hasn’t fully fused them, and sometimes the big unifying line falls flat. But the instinct — that our fights with each other can be productive instead of disqualifying — is more honest than the alternative, and it travels. Now the counterexample, because attention alone is never the whole story. In Los Angeles, a former reality star named Spencer Pratt ran for mayor and, if you were online, looked like a phenomenon — great ads, impossible to avoid, the talk of the platform. Then he lost badly, underperforming Trump in the same city. Two reasons. First, there was no actual reason for the man to be mayor; the attention had nothing underneath it. Second, a lot of that supposed momentum lived on one platform that’s become a sealed room, where a small, intense crowd convinces itself that whatever’s loud inside is popular outside. It’s the same trap the left fell into years ago when it mistook the most-online opinion for the most popular one. Lethal then, lethal now, and the people inside can’t feel it because everyone around them agrees. Pratt is the proof that attention has to be attached to something real. When it isn’t, it evaporates the second it meets actual voters. Here’s the thread. The public can smell a phony. On the street, in an interview room, across a kitchen table, people know within thirty seconds whether you’re telling them what you actually think or what you think they want to hear. These platforms do the same thing at scale — they sniff out inauthenticity in a way the old institutions never did. The institutions wanted you to file down who you were to fit what they needed. The new ecosystem punishes exactly that and rewards the opposite. That’s what all six share. Platner’s anger is real. El-Sayed’s conviction is real. Talarico’s decency is real. Ossoff’s craft is real. Newsom’s appetite for the fight is real. Wildly different people, wildly different politics, and the one thing they have in common is that each took something true about who they actually are and learned to translate it into the language of this moment — the clip, the post, the connection that travels. The old machine recruited for institutional fit and kept getting blindsided. The consultants who built careers on the dead formula are still selling it and hoping you don’t notice. But the entry ticket now is attention, and you earn it by being some real version of yourself in public and eating the risk that comes with it. The machine is obsolete. The only question left is how long the people running it take to admit it. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!
249 episodios
Comentarios
0Sé la primera persona en comentar
¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de The Michael Fanone Show!