WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.600 Welcome to another deep dive. We are genuinely 00:00:03.600 --> 00:00:05.519 thrilled to have you with us today. Absolutely. 00:00:05.679 --> 00:00:07.879 Thanks for tuning in. Usually we take this time 00:00:07.879 --> 00:00:10.679 to tackle, well, you know, sprawling topics. 00:00:10.759 --> 00:00:13.859 Right. Complex historical shifts. Exactly. Intricate 00:00:13.859 --> 00:00:16.800 technological breakthroughs, massive cultural 00:00:16.800 --> 00:00:19.980 movements. But today we are attempting something 00:00:19.980 --> 00:00:22.760 entirely different. Very different. We are zooming 00:00:22.760 --> 00:00:26.199 in on a single two word phrase. Just two words. 00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:28.699 Two words that managed to define a presidential 00:00:28.699 --> 00:00:31.960 campaign. birth an internet meme that simply 00:00:31.960 --> 00:00:37.219 refused to die and capture a massive seismic 00:00:37.219 --> 00:00:39.159 shift in how American political communication 00:00:39.159 --> 00:00:41.659 functions. It really was a shift. We are pulling 00:00:41.659 --> 00:00:43.880 all our insights today from the Wikipedia article 00:00:43.880 --> 00:00:46.439 dedicated entirely to the phrase, please clap. 00:00:46.579 --> 00:00:48.679 Please clap. Yeah. The mission for this deep 00:00:48.679 --> 00:00:51.140 dive is to dissect the anatomy of an incredibly 00:00:51.140 --> 00:00:53.679 awkward political moment and trace its lasting 00:00:53.679 --> 00:00:56.219 cultural legacy. And before we get too far in, 00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:59.219 because this deep dive involves. Real political 00:00:59.219 --> 00:01:02.100 campaigns, specific candidates from both Republican 00:01:02.100 --> 00:01:04.700 and Democratic parties, and highly polarized 00:01:04.700 --> 00:01:07.840 election cycles. It is really important to lay 00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:10.939 out the parameters for you up front. We are operating 00:01:10.939 --> 00:01:14.060 with complete impartiality. Complete. We are 00:01:14.060 --> 00:01:16.280 not endorsing any political viewpoints. We are 00:01:16.280 --> 00:01:19.019 not taking sides. And we are not evaluating the 00:01:19.019 --> 00:01:21.239 merits of any policies or campaign strategies. 00:01:21.540 --> 00:01:23.700 Right. Our role today is strictly analytical. 00:01:24.379 --> 00:01:27.040 We are examining the factual events, the media 00:01:27.040 --> 00:01:29.439 ecosystem, and the cultural reactions exactly 00:01:29.439 --> 00:01:31.219 as they are documented in the source material. 00:01:31.560 --> 00:01:33.840 This is an exploration of political communication 00:01:33.840 --> 00:01:36.939 and internet culture. Nothing more. Okay, let's 00:01:36.939 --> 00:01:39.439 unpack this. To truly understand the weight of 00:01:39.439 --> 00:01:41.959 the place clap, We have to situate ourselves 00:01:41.959 --> 00:01:44.620 in the incredibly volatile landscape of the 2016 00:01:44.620 --> 00:01:47.180 Republican presidential primary. It was a chaotic 00:01:47.180 --> 00:01:49.859 time. It really was. We are looking at a field 00:01:49.859 --> 00:01:51.959 where traditional political gravity seemed to 00:01:51.959 --> 00:01:54.439 be failing and at the center of that structural 00:01:54.439 --> 00:01:57.739 collapse was Jeb Bush. Right. And we all know 00:01:57.739 --> 00:02:00.099 the resume he brought to the table when he formally 00:02:00.099 --> 00:02:03.299 launched his campaign on June 14th, 2015. Two 00:02:03.299 --> 00:02:06.260 terms governing Florida. A massive fundraising 00:02:06.260 --> 00:02:09.099 apparatus. Yeah, and the undeniable weight of 00:02:09.099 --> 00:02:12.159 a political dynasty. Exactly. In any other election 00:02:12.159 --> 00:02:14.659 cycle, those establishment credentials are the 00:02:14.659 --> 00:02:17.479 ultimate asset. They signal stability. Inevitability, 00:02:17.539 --> 00:02:21.599 even. But the political climate of 2016 was actively 00:02:21.599 --> 00:02:23.620 hostile to the concept of the establishment. 00:02:23.939 --> 00:02:27.610 The electorate. was hungry for disruption. And 00:02:27.610 --> 00:02:30.710 that establishment pedigree rapidly mutated into 00:02:30.710 --> 00:02:33.370 a massive liability. The source material notes 00:02:33.370 --> 00:02:36.009 a profound struggle within his campaign to formulate 00:02:36.009 --> 00:02:39.129 a distinct, resonant message. He attempted to 00:02:39.129 --> 00:02:41.310 lean heavily on his executive record in Florida. 00:02:41.719 --> 00:02:44.020 But the narrative taking hold among voters and 00:02:44.020 --> 00:02:46.360 the press was that his message was, well, fundamentally 00:02:46.360 --> 00:02:49.199 uninspiring. Uninspiring. When you combine an 00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:51.360 uninspiring stump speech with the Bush family 00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:54.039 name in a populist year, he was easily painted 00:02:54.039 --> 00:02:56.599 into a corner as the ultimate out -of -touch 00:02:56.599 --> 00:02:59.039 symbol of the old guard. The contrast within 00:02:59.039 --> 00:03:01.180 the primary field could not have been more stark, 00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:04.139 and that contrast was ruthlessly exploited. Oh, 00:03:04.159 --> 00:03:06.800 absolutely. You had Bush attempting to run a 00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:09.620 cautious, resume -driven traditional campaign. 00:03:10.169 --> 00:03:12.909 Then you had candidates operating on a completely 00:03:12.909 --> 00:03:15.409 different frequency. Most notably Donald Trump. 00:03:15.590 --> 00:03:18.669 Right. Who was utilizing a deliberately brash, 00:03:18.689 --> 00:03:21.430 unconventional and highly aggressive rhetorical 00:03:21.430 --> 00:03:24.909 style. Trump recognized the vulnerability in 00:03:24.909 --> 00:03:27.449 Bush's traditional approach and tagged him with 00:03:27.449 --> 00:03:31.500 the low energy moniker. Low energy. It is a devastatingly 00:03:31.500 --> 00:03:33.719 effective piece of political branding because 00:03:33.719 --> 00:03:36.780 it attacks the vibe of the candidate rather than 00:03:36.780 --> 00:03:38.919 the policy. Right. It creates a lens through 00:03:38.919 --> 00:03:40.879 which every single action the candidate takes 00:03:40.879 --> 00:03:43.520 is subsequently viewed. If he pauses, he's low 00:03:43.520 --> 00:03:45.740 energy. If he speaks softly, he's low energy. 00:03:45.979 --> 00:03:48.419 The damage was catastrophic and we can actually 00:03:48.419 --> 00:03:51.419 track that decline through the hard numbers leading 00:03:51.419 --> 00:03:54.120 up to this moment. Going into February of 2016, 00:03:54.500 --> 00:03:57.569 the campaign was suffocating. Despite the massive 00:03:57.569 --> 00:04:00.270 financial backing. Right. They were failing to 00:04:00.270 --> 00:04:03.550 gain any measurable traction with the base. By 00:04:03.550 --> 00:04:06.430 the end of 2015, national polling had him languishing 00:04:06.430 --> 00:04:10.189 at an abysmal 3%. 3%. For a candidate who entered 00:04:10.189 --> 00:04:12.250 the race as the presumed frontrunner, hitting 00:04:12.250 --> 00:04:16.089 3 % is a five -alarm fire. The situation escalated 00:04:16.089 --> 00:04:19.329 from dire to critical following the Iowa caucuses 00:04:19.329 --> 00:04:23.449 on February 1st, 2016. Bush placed sixth. Sixth 00:04:23.449 --> 00:04:25.810 place. He walked away with just 2 .8 percent 00:04:25.810 --> 00:04:28.129 of the vote. So the context surrounding the Please 00:04:28.129 --> 00:04:30.449 Clap incident is not just a politician having 00:04:30.449 --> 00:04:33.110 a slow day on the trail. Right. It is a candidate 00:04:33.110 --> 00:04:36.089 operating under the crushing pressure of a collapsing 00:04:36.089 --> 00:04:39.189 inevitability narrative. They desperately needed 00:04:39.189 --> 00:04:41.170 a momentum shift heading into New Hampshire. 00:04:41.470 --> 00:04:43.290 That sets the stage perfectly for the very next 00:04:43.290 --> 00:04:46.509 day. It is February 2, 2016. The fallout from 00:04:46.509 --> 00:04:48.750 that sixth place Iowa finish is dominating the 00:04:48.750 --> 00:04:51.129 news cycle. Dominating. Jeb Bush is in Hanover, 00:04:51.230 --> 00:04:53.209 New Hampshire, holding a town hall event at the 00:04:53.209 --> 00:04:55.889 Hanover Inn Hotel. He is addressing the crowd, 00:04:56.029 --> 00:04:58.350 and he makes a deliberate strategic choice to 00:04:58.350 --> 00:05:00.389 address the stylistic contrast between himself 00:05:00.389 --> 00:05:02.910 and the populist wing of the primary field. I 00:05:02.910 --> 00:05:05.269 actually pulled the verbatim transcript from 00:05:05.269 --> 00:05:07.610 the source because the buildup is a master class 00:05:07.610 --> 00:05:09.910 in traditional political pacing. Let's hear it. 00:05:11.050 --> 00:05:13.970 He tells the crowd, I will not trash talk. I 00:05:13.970 --> 00:05:16.569 will not be a divider in chief or an agitator 00:05:16.569 --> 00:05:19.189 in chief. I won't be out there blowharding, talking 00:05:19.189 --> 00:05:21.769 a big game without backing it up. I think the 00:05:21.769 --> 00:05:24.089 next president needs to be a lot quieter, but 00:05:24.089 --> 00:05:26.470 send a signal that we're prepared to act in the 00:05:26.470 --> 00:05:29.269 national security interests of this country to 00:05:29.269 --> 00:05:31.769 get back in the business of creating a more peaceful 00:05:31.769 --> 00:05:34.639 world. What's fascinating here is the deliberate, 00:05:34.800 --> 00:05:37.379 almost surgical nature of that rhetorical construction. 00:05:37.680 --> 00:05:40.860 Yeah. He is utilizing phrases like divider -in 00:05:40.860 --> 00:05:43.939 -chief, agitator -in -chief, and blowharding 00:05:43.939 --> 00:05:47.180 to draw a clear negative silhouette of his opponents. 00:05:47.399 --> 00:05:50.339 Right. Then he fills the positive space with 00:05:50.339 --> 00:05:53.579 his own vision, a quieter presidency. A quieter 00:05:53.579 --> 00:05:56.300 presidency. He is making a direct high -stakes 00:05:56.300 --> 00:05:58.300 appeal to this New Hampshire audience, arguing 00:05:58.300 --> 00:06:01.139 that serious, effective governance does not require 00:06:01.139 --> 00:06:04.259 theatrical aggression. Structurally, that entire 00:06:04.259 --> 00:06:06.500 paragraph is engineered as a classic applause 00:06:06.500 --> 00:06:09.439 line. The cadence builds tension with a list 00:06:09.439 --> 00:06:12.000 of things he refuses to do and resolves with 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:14.660 a lofty, noble vision of creating a peaceful 00:06:14.660 --> 00:06:17.860 world. In the traditional playbook, that resolution 00:06:17.860 --> 00:06:20.740 is the cue for the room to erupt. Except the 00:06:20.740 --> 00:06:23.189 room does not erupt. No. The resolution lands 00:06:23.189 --> 00:06:26.350 and there is absolute silence. Crickets. No applause, 00:06:26.649 --> 00:06:29.589 no cheering, just the ambient noise of a quiet 00:06:29.589 --> 00:06:32.069 room staring back at a politician. It's painful. 00:06:32.310 --> 00:06:35.730 And into that agonizing void, Jeb Bush leans 00:06:35.730 --> 00:06:38.550 into the microphone and utters two words, please 00:06:38.550 --> 00:06:42.149 clap. It is a staggering moment of unscripted 00:06:42.149 --> 00:06:45.110 vulnerability. Staggering. The artificial architecture 00:06:45.110 --> 00:06:47.810 of the political stump speech simply collapses 00:06:47.810 --> 00:06:51.069 in real time. You are witnessing the exact moment 00:06:51.069 --> 00:06:56.079 a candidate And the campaign's reaction to this, 00:06:56.139 --> 00:06:58.420 the immediate damage control, is almost as revealing 00:06:58.420 --> 00:07:01.939 as the moment itself. Oh, the spin. Right. Spokeswoman 00:07:01.939 --> 00:07:03.920 Christy Campbell issued a statement to BuzzFeed 00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:06.680 News attempting to drastically reframe the narrative. 00:07:06.980 --> 00:07:10.120 She argued that the media was willfully mischaracterizing 00:07:10.120 --> 00:07:12.399 the interaction. Her position was that Please 00:07:12.399 --> 00:07:14.959 Clap was not a desperate plea from a failing 00:07:14.959 --> 00:07:17.259 campaign, but rather a charming moment between 00:07:17.259 --> 00:07:21.670 the candidate and the voters. awkward silence 00:07:21.670 --> 00:07:24.470 as charming highlights the sheer panic behind 00:07:24.470 --> 00:07:27.750 the scenes. Yeah. In previous eras, before high 00:07:27.750 --> 00:07:29.970 definition video and ubiquitous social media 00:07:29.970 --> 00:07:33.350 sharing, a campaign might have successfully massaged 00:07:33.350 --> 00:07:35.750 a print reporter's account of a quiet room. Sure, 00:07:35.829 --> 00:07:39.110 maybe. But you cannot spin the visceral discomfort 00:07:39.110 --> 00:07:42.470 of a video clip. The evidence is entirely experiential. 00:07:42.529 --> 00:07:45.290 The viewer feels the silence. So what does this 00:07:45.290 --> 00:07:47.769 all mean? When the spin doctors fail, how does 00:07:47.769 --> 00:07:50.250 the media ecosystem process a moment like this? 00:07:50.750 --> 00:07:53.029 because they clearly rejected the charming defense. 00:07:53.290 --> 00:07:55.629 Oh, entirely. The political press corps recognized 00:07:55.629 --> 00:07:58.569 it immediately as the defining metaphor for his 00:07:58.569 --> 00:08:00.970 electoral struggles. The phrase was universally 00:08:00.970 --> 00:08:03.670 ridiculed, serving as a highly efficient shorthand 00:08:03.670 --> 00:08:05.389 for everything that was malfunctioning within 00:08:05.389 --> 00:08:07.709 the campaign infrastructure. The source provides 00:08:07.709 --> 00:08:09.970 some incredibly sharp examples of how the media 00:08:09.970 --> 00:08:13.350 codified this narrative. MSNBC stated that the 00:08:13.350 --> 00:08:15.269 moment will be remembered as an unfortunate and 00:08:15.269 --> 00:08:18.500 yet quintessential phrase. Quintessential. Calling 00:08:18.500 --> 00:08:21.300 it quintessential is devastating. It signifies 00:08:21.300 --> 00:08:23.639 that the media no longer viewed it as a gaffe, 00:08:23.759 --> 00:08:27.060 but as his core political identity. The New Republic 00:08:27.060 --> 00:08:30.560 was arguably even more clinical. They described 00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:33.220 the two words as a succinct encapsulation of 00:08:33.220 --> 00:08:36.720 a flailing presidential campaign. Wow. Journalists 00:08:36.720 --> 00:08:39.039 no longer needed to write exhaustive analytical 00:08:39.039 --> 00:08:41.759 pieces detailing his polling deficits or his 00:08:41.759 --> 00:08:44.679 strategic missteps. They merely had to deploy 00:08:44.679 --> 00:08:47.909 the phrase, please clap. and the reader instantly 00:08:47.909 --> 00:08:50.750 understood the power dynamic at play. It effectively 00:08:50.750 --> 00:08:54.049 ended his viability as a serious contender. On 00:08:54.049 --> 00:08:56.529 February 20, just a few weeks after the Hanover 00:08:56.529 --> 00:08:59.610 Inn town hall, Jeb Bush formally suspended his 00:08:59.610 --> 00:09:01.909 campaign. Just a few weeks later. The subsequent 00:09:01.909 --> 00:09:04.149 postmortems cemented the moment in political 00:09:04.149 --> 00:09:06.899 history. Vox published a retrospective titled 00:09:06.899 --> 00:09:09.899 The 17 Saddest Moments from His Run, and Please 00:09:09.899 --> 00:09:12.299 Clap was featured prominently. Naturally. The 00:09:12.299 --> 00:09:14.700 speed at which a lifelong public servant's legacy 00:09:14.700 --> 00:09:17.399 was eclipsed by a three -second interaction is 00:09:17.399 --> 00:09:19.480 a testament to the brutal efficiency of modern 00:09:19.480 --> 00:09:21.679 political media. It really is. Here's where it 00:09:21.679 --> 00:09:23.980 gets really interesting, though. Typically, when 00:09:23.980 --> 00:09:26.840 a campaign folds, the associated gaffes fade 00:09:26.840 --> 00:09:28.679 into the background. Right, they become trivia. 00:09:28.919 --> 00:09:32.179 Trivia for political junkies. But... Please clap 00:09:32.179 --> 00:09:34.840 bypass the normal decay of the news cycle and 00:09:34.840 --> 00:09:37.600 achieved a bizarre form of internet immortality. 00:09:37.960 --> 00:09:40.039 Inverse actually highlighted it as one of the 00:09:40.039 --> 00:09:43.440 best political memes of December 2016. Months 00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:46.419 after he'd exited the race. Exactly. It mutated 00:09:46.419 --> 00:09:49.679 into this highly ironic pro -Bush internet meme, 00:09:49.919 --> 00:09:52.440 permanently entangled with his official campaign 00:09:52.440 --> 00:09:55.340 branding. And the irony you were touching on 00:09:55.340 --> 00:09:57.980 is central to why the meme endured. His campaign 00:09:57.980 --> 00:10:01.409 heavily utilized the logo Jeb. featuring a highly 00:10:01.409 --> 00:10:04.669 enthusiastic exclamation point. Jeb with an exclamation 00:10:04.669 --> 00:10:07.490 point. Right. The internet recognized the massive 00:10:07.490 --> 00:10:09.990 glaring dissonance between the forced, manufactured 00:10:09.990 --> 00:10:12.509 excitement of that exclamation point and the 00:10:12.509 --> 00:10:14.629 depressing reality of a man having to beg a room 00:10:14.629 --> 00:10:17.090 for applause. The exclamation point practically 00:10:17.090 --> 00:10:19.509 invites the mockery when paired with the Hanover 00:10:19.509 --> 00:10:22.029 Inn audio. If we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:10:22.250 --> 00:10:25.850 the memification of this moment reveals a significant 00:10:25.850 --> 00:10:29.539 shift in the broader electorate. The Los Angeles 00:10:29.539 --> 00:10:32.519 Times published a piece by Brian Contreras that 00:10:32.519 --> 00:10:34.879 provides an excellent sociological reading of 00:10:34.879 --> 00:10:37.679 this phenomenon. Oh, I read that. Contreras argues 00:10:37.679 --> 00:10:39.779 that the relentless Internet memes surrounding 00:10:39.779 --> 00:10:42.580 the Jeb Bush campaign were not merely cheap shots. 00:10:42.820 --> 00:10:45.740 They represented a collective cultural mockery 00:10:45.740 --> 00:10:49.059 of a very specific outgoing brand of politics. 00:10:49.500 --> 00:10:52.360 They were mocking a softer spoken, more cautious 00:10:52.360 --> 00:10:55.419 conservatism. The exact style of conservatism 00:10:55.419 --> 00:10:57.740 he was attempting to sell in that very speech. 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:00.419 The mean resonated so deeply because it perfectly 00:11:00.419 --> 00:11:02.960 captured how fundamentally out of step that cautious 00:11:02.960 --> 00:11:05.659 approach was with the prevailing national mood. 00:11:06.659 --> 00:11:08.840 Contreras points out that this traditional quieter 00:11:08.840 --> 00:11:11.159 style of governance seemed to offer increasingly 00:11:11.159 --> 00:11:13.879 less to voters in a rapidly polarizing America. 00:11:14.100 --> 00:11:15.919 Right. The electorate was demanding visceral 00:11:15.919 --> 00:11:18.340 combative representation and the mean became 00:11:18.340 --> 00:11:20.580 a vehicle for the culture to reject the premise 00:11:20.580 --> 00:11:23.059 of the Bush campaign entirely. It is fascinating 00:11:23.059 --> 00:11:25.899 to see an Internet joke carry that much sociological 00:11:25.899 --> 00:11:29.279 weight, and its staying power is genuinely remarkable. 00:11:30.139 --> 00:11:33.179 The source notes that years later, in March of 00:11:33.179 --> 00:11:35.679 2019, Vanity Fair was still utilizing the phrase 00:11:35.679 --> 00:11:38.980 as a primary reference point. Years later? Yeah. 00:11:39.039 --> 00:11:41.580 They ran a piece discussing Bush encouraging 00:11:41.580 --> 00:11:44.399 a Republican primary challenge to incumbent Donald 00:11:44.399 --> 00:11:47.240 Trump for the 2020 cycle, and the headline directly 00:11:47.240 --> 00:11:49.899 invoked the please clap moment. It has become 00:11:49.899 --> 00:11:52.700 inescapable cultural shorthand. It established 00:11:52.700 --> 00:11:55.980 a brand new, universally understood metric for 00:11:55.980 --> 00:11:59.000 political awkwardness. Please clap is now the 00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:01.159 gold standard against which all future moments 00:12:01.159 --> 00:12:03.299 of failed crowd work are measured. It has become 00:12:03.299 --> 00:12:05.679 an entirely bipartisan benchmark. Oh, definitely. 00:12:05.940 --> 00:12:07.340 The source provides some compelling examples 00:12:07.340 --> 00:12:09.639 of this exact dynamic playing out on the Democratic 00:12:09.639 --> 00:12:11.840 side in subsequent election cycles. Give us an 00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:15.019 example. Take April 22, 2019. We are in the lead 00:12:15.019 --> 00:12:17.639 up to the 2020 Democratic primaries, and CNN 00:12:17.639 --> 00:12:20.100 is hosting a televised town hall with candidate 00:12:20.100 --> 00:12:23.570 Amy Klobuchar. She is on stage delivering her 00:12:23.570 --> 00:12:26.009 pitch, and she highlights a genuinely impressive 00:12:26.009 --> 00:12:28.769 piece of electoral data. She tells the audience 00:12:28.769 --> 00:12:31.470 that she had successfully won every single congressional 00:12:31.470 --> 00:12:34.169 district in Minnesota during each of her Senate 00:12:34.169 --> 00:12:36.649 elections. Which is a huge accomplishment. In 00:12:36.649 --> 00:12:39.210 a standard political environment, a stat like 00:12:39.210 --> 00:12:42.549 that is designed to elicit immediate cheers from 00:12:42.549 --> 00:12:45.549 a friendly town hall crowd. She has a massive 00:12:45.549 --> 00:12:48.110 flex of electability, which was the core rationale 00:12:48.110 --> 00:12:51.070 of her candidacy. The rhetorical structure is 00:12:51.070 --> 00:12:53.730 identical to the Hanover Inn moment. Present 00:12:53.730 --> 00:12:56.730 the data, pause, and wait for the validation. 00:12:57.090 --> 00:12:59.710 But the validation never arrives. She delivers 00:12:59.710 --> 00:13:01.990 the statistic, and the audience just sits there 00:13:01.990 --> 00:13:04.570 in silence. Silence again. The tension is palpable. 00:13:05.009 --> 00:13:07.309 Klobuchar is forced to break the silence herself, 00:13:07.570 --> 00:13:10.950 actively prompting the room by saying, It's when 00:13:10.950 --> 00:13:13.570 you guys are supposed to cheer, okay? The mechanical 00:13:13.570 --> 00:13:16.299 failure is the same. The candidate assumes the 00:13:16.299 --> 00:13:18.460 audience understands their role in the theatrical 00:13:18.460 --> 00:13:20.679 production of a town hall. Right. And when the 00:13:20.679 --> 00:13:23.460 audience misses their cue, the candidate clumsily 00:13:23.460 --> 00:13:25.940 tries to direct them from the stage. The outline 00:13:25.940 --> 00:13:27.980 provides another perfect example of this just 00:13:27.980 --> 00:13:31.820 a few months later. On January 21st, 2020, Pete 00:13:31.820 --> 00:13:34.039 Buttigieg is speaking at a campaign event in 00:13:34.039 --> 00:13:36.899 Iowa. He is delivering his remarks, aiming for 00:13:36.899 --> 00:13:39.720 a crescendo, but the crowd's energy is completely 00:13:39.720 --> 00:13:43.049 flat. Just not giving him anything. Right. He 00:13:43.049 --> 00:13:46.009 finishes his point. The room fails to react with 00:13:46.009 --> 00:13:49.110 the expected enthusiasm, and he resorts to verbally 00:13:49.110 --> 00:13:51.730 coaxing them, simply saying, come on. This raises 00:13:51.730 --> 00:13:53.970 an important question for you to consider as 00:13:53.970 --> 00:13:56.269 we watch the political process continue to evolve. 00:13:56.730 --> 00:13:59.509 What do these repeated, highly viral moments 00:13:59.509 --> 00:14:02.610 of awkwardness reveal about our actual expectations 00:14:02.610 --> 00:14:04.889 of our elected officials? That's a great point. 00:14:04.990 --> 00:14:07.580 We seem to have instituted a rigid demand. that 00:14:07.580 --> 00:14:09.940 politicians operate as flawless stage performers, 00:14:10.240 --> 00:14:12.779 capable of perfectly reading a room, manipulating 00:14:12.779 --> 00:14:15.860 crowd energy, and generating constant clip -ready 00:14:15.860 --> 00:14:18.460 enthusiasm. Performers over politicians. Exactly. 00:14:18.519 --> 00:14:21.240 When they fail at this performative aspect, When 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:23.000 the curtain slips and they awkwardly ask for 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:25.039 the applause they assumed they had earned, the 00:14:25.039 --> 00:14:27.279 media and the Internet punish them with far more 00:14:27.279 --> 00:14:30.080 severity than we might punish a substantive flaw 00:14:30.080 --> 00:14:33.100 in their actual policy platforms. Right. We are 00:14:33.100 --> 00:14:35.960 increasingly measuring their capacity to entertain 00:14:35.960 --> 00:14:39.549 alongside their capacity to govern. It really 00:14:39.549 --> 00:14:42.330 forces you to examine the lens through which 00:14:42.330 --> 00:14:45.269 we view these campaigns. The core takeaway for 00:14:45.269 --> 00:14:48.129 you listening today is how drastically the rules 00:14:48.129 --> 00:14:50.789 of modern communication have shifted. A massive 00:14:50.789 --> 00:14:52.929 shift. A candidate can build a decades -long 00:14:52.929 --> 00:14:56.200 resume. develop deeply nuanced policy positions, 00:14:56.320 --> 00:14:59.399 and assemble a massive, heavily funded campaign 00:14:59.399 --> 00:15:02.620 infrastructure. But all of that institutional 00:15:02.620 --> 00:15:06.460 weight can be entirely, permanently overshadowed 00:15:06.460 --> 00:15:09.259 by a single unscripted moment of vulnerability 00:15:09.259 --> 00:15:12.039 that the internet decides to weaponize. Weaponize 00:15:12.039 --> 00:15:13.980 is the right word. Two simple words delivered 00:15:13.980 --> 00:15:16.720 into a quiet room can completely rewrite a legacy. 00:15:16.980 --> 00:15:18.700 I want to leave you with a final thought to mull 00:15:18.700 --> 00:15:20.559 over on your own as we wrap up this analysis. 00:15:21.129 --> 00:15:23.509 Consider the actual substance of Bush's pitch 00:15:23.509 --> 00:15:25.610 at the Hanover Inn. His argument for a quieter 00:15:25.610 --> 00:15:28.970 president. Yes, a quieter president who focuses 00:15:28.970 --> 00:15:31.669 diligently on the unglamorous business of a peaceful 00:15:31.669 --> 00:15:34.830 world. What if the very qualities that cause 00:15:34.830 --> 00:15:37.529 a politician to go viral for an awkward silence, 00:15:37.909 --> 00:15:40.389 like operating under the assumption that an audience 00:15:40.389 --> 00:15:42.970 is thoughtfully, quietly listening rather than 00:15:42.970 --> 00:15:45.830 demanding performative, raucous applause, are 00:15:45.830 --> 00:15:48.269 actually the defining traits of someone focused 00:15:48.269 --> 00:15:51.330 on the work rather than the show? That's fascinating. 00:15:51.549 --> 00:15:54.090 In an era completely dominated by the algorithm's 00:15:54.090 --> 00:15:57.210 demand for constant, loud entertainment, has 00:15:57.210 --> 00:15:59.610 the quiet leader been permanently disqualified 00:15:59.610 --> 00:16:02.429 from the modern political stage? That reframes 00:16:02.429 --> 00:16:05.049 the entire concept of electability. It is definitely 00:16:05.049 --> 00:16:06.809 something to keep in mind the next time you watch 00:16:06.809 --> 00:16:09.750 a candidate working a silent room. Thank you 00:16:09.750 --> 00:16:11.809 for joining us on this deep dive into the anatomy 00:16:11.809 --> 00:16:15.190 of please, clap, keep questioning the media narratives, 00:16:15.269 --> 00:16:17.129 keep looking past the memes, and we will catch 00:16:17.129 --> 00:16:17.850 you on the next one.