Is TikTok the future of politics? – POLITICO – POLITICO

If you’ve read anything about TikTok in Washington, it’s probably focused on growing political anxiety around the Chinese Communist Party’s potential influence over the app’s parent company. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns over data privacy and the risk that TikTok could be exploited to sew misinformation, propaganda and political discord. Some have even called for banning the app. President Biden signed a law in December banning the app on government devices. The state of Montana went further, banning it for everyone — though the law has yet to take effect.

But TikTok has also become a powerful means of spreading a political message, especially for politicians and campaigns seeking to connect with younger constituents. Biden’s 2020 campaign leveraged “influencers” posting on TikTok to explore his record on race, and political organizations are working with influencers to target voter groups who prefer the more organic form of messaging to a fundraising email. Democratic New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman has built an eye-popping following on the platform, where his content — eating popcorn during the contentious Kevin McCarthy speakership election, advocating for trans rights at a committee hearing — has drawn a major audience, sometimes racking up millions of views.

“Young people are typically less politically engaged: In 2022, people ages 18 to 29 voted at a rate of 31 percent,” writes Nancy Scola, who interviewed nearly two dozen digital consultants, political aides and voter mobilization experts for this week’s Friday Read. “And TikTok, say experts, can help reach and motivate more of these voters.”

If it sticks around, that is.

Is TikTok a ticking data security time bomb? A poisonous influence on our already toxic political discourse? Or a powerful tool for engaging new voters in the democratic process?

Read the story.

“Your claim that Donald Trump is motivated by vengeance and grievance would be a lot more credible if your entire campaign were not based on vengeance and grievance against one man.”

Can you guess who said this about former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.**

A Tough Poll for Donald Trump … Trump maintains not only that his historic indictments are a politically motivated travesty, but that they’ll animate his base and fill his campaign’s coffers. But a new POLITICO Magazine/Ipsos poll has some surprising takeaways for the former president — and most of them will be unwelcome. Like the fact that 61 percent of Americans want him to face trial before the 2024 election, and about half the country thinks he’s guilty. It’s bad news for Trump: “Even as he remains the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination, the cascading indictments are likely to take a toll on his general
election prospects,” writes Ankush Khardori.

Raise your hand if you didn’t catch the debate Wednesday night. Or, better yet, take a cue from former Alabama Governor Asa Hutchinson and keep those hands down. These talking points will make you sound like you were glued to a Fox News live stream you opened with your parents’ cable subscription. (From associate editor Dylon Jones.)

– Mention the hand-raising. The Fox News moderators asked the candidates to raise their hands if they’d still support a convicted Trump for president if he wins the nomination. The cascade was a striking moment: Ramaswamy went first, followed by former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. DeSantis went next, after looking to his left and right, followed by Mike Pence, then Christie (sort of), who clarified that he was wagging his finger “No.” Hutchinson kept his hands down.

– Why are your most politically obsessed friends talking about the 14th Amendment after the debate? Hutchinson floated a theory that Section 3, which barred ex-Confederates from office during Reconstruction, could also apply to Trump because of January 6. As a generous and knowledgeable debate watcher, you’re more than happy to share further reading, like law professor Kim Wehle’s essay about the legal theory and Joshua Zeitz’ history piece on the 14th Amendment later in this newsletter.

– After the debate, the name “Vivek Ramaswamy” skyrocketed on Google search as people clamored to learn more about the grinning millennial, who scrapped with just about the whole debate stage. Christie knocked his speaking style as sounding “like ChatGPT.” Since everyone’s so curious about him, I asked Chat GPT to introduce Ramaswamy in the style of his hero, Trump: “Vivek Ramaswamy, folks, let me tell you, he’s a tremendous American entrepreneur. He founded Roivant Sciences, a big-league biopharmaceutical company that’s all about getting those fantastic drug candidates and making things happen. A real winner in the pharmaceutical world, believe me!”

– So, what do you say to the obvious question: Who won? Well, DeSantis “faded into the crowd,” but you could mention Pence’s “adult-in-the-room presence” or Ramaswamy’s soaring interest. Or you could shout out Haley, whose tough-love on the GOP being out-of-step on abortion and forceful defense of NATO-aligned foreign policy made her sound more realistic than her opponents. Or, you could say that the only winner is the one who missed it. No, not you: I mean Trump. He had other things to attend to, but the whole debate took place in a crater he detonated, and it’s clear we’ll be living with Trumpism whether the man himself is in the Oval Office, at Mar-a-Lago or in a jail cell.

Trump v. the Constitution … Legal scholars have been debating a new theory that could squash Trump’s campaign: Does the 14th Amendment, which bars “insurrectionists” from office, apply to the 45th president, who sought to overturn the 2020 election? According to history, it does, argues Joshua Zeitz. To understand why, we have to go back to the Reconstruction era, when ex-Confederates sought to reclaim political office — threatening a nation still recovering from the Civil War.

Body Language Spoke Volumes at the Debate … When former FBI agent Joe Navarro first tuned into the GOP debate, he muted the broadcast. As a body language expert, he was less interested in what the candidates said than in how they looked saying it. And their gestures, stances and facial expressions said a lot they didn’t mean to say. “Body language is the primary means by which we communicate, revealing our true thoughts and feelings. It tells stories that canned speeches do not,” Navarro writes. “And what a story it told at last night’s GOP primary debate.”