MANILA, Philippines – There was neither excitement nor trepidation on Wednesday, November 6, at the United States Embassy in Manila’s quadrennial election watch party, as polls closed and the electoral college count almost immediately skewed towards eventual winner Donald Trump.
Attendees divided their time monitoring the 24/7 news coverage on the giant screens inside the ballroom or on their phones, at times taking photos with standees of Trump and rival presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Haris. In retrospect, the relative calm of November 6 in the Philippines speaks of the swiftness of a second — and much more decisive — Trump win.
In a statement released hours after Trump claimed victory, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. congratulated both the Republican candidate and the American people. “I am hopeful that this unshakeable alliance, tested in war and peace, will be a force of good that will blaze a path of prosperity and amity, in the region, and in both sides of the Pacific,” said Marcos.
That the President highlighted hopes of an “unshakeable alliance” after Trump’s win, then signed twin laws that operationalize the 2016 Arbitral Award in the South China Sea, were striking bookends for the first Philippine-hosted dialogue on the South China Sea. (That he likewise mentioned having met Trump “as a young man” so he knows that Trump’s “robust leadership will result in a better future for all of us” is also interesting — but that’s a topic we’ll pick in the future.)
As quickly as Democrats and pundits in the United States analyzed, nitpicked, and found a minority group or personality to blame for the devastating loss, so too did experts in and outside Manila debate whether Trump would be good or bad for the Philippines and the Indo-Pacific.
But first, what happened?
The shifting media and information ecosystem. Data forensics company The Nerve, in a study released in June 2024, painted a bleak picture of the US information ecosystem. Much like the Philippines, theirs is an ecosystem where “hyper-personalization creates information bubbles with less fact-based journalism, more partisan propaganda, and disinformation.”
“Social media and personalized content created echo chambers that heavily rely on hyper-partisan sources, blurring the line between fact and fiction, news and propaganda,” the report noted.
Among their findings is that Gen Z, or the youngest segment of voters in the US, are tech savvy while also inclined to believe the political news and views they encounter on social media. Gaby Baizas, a researcher and writer for Nerve, said at a Rappler special panel on the US presidential elections on Monday, November 11, that savvy doesn’t make you immune to propaganda. The paper’s lead researcher, Don Kevin Hapal, earlier told me in an interview that being internet savvy didn’t equate to media literacy. That’s a tough pill to swallow, and an urgent issue to address not only in the US but in the Philippines, too.
And so it was with confusion and disbelief that I saw traditional media voices in the United States freak out over Harris’ (and, to a lesser extent, Trump’s) decision to spend precious time speaking to “non-traditional” sources of information: Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy (where Harris guested) or The Joe Rogan Experience (where Trump guested). (The debate rages on whether Harris should have squeezed in podcast time with Rogan.)
It shouldn’t be a surprise for politicians and candidates to turn to these platforms, whose audiences include those who aren’t already in the campaign’s existing information bubbles. It happened in the Philippines when then-candidate Marcos and eventual president Marcos gave lengthy sit-down first dibs to his wedding inaanak (god daughter), TV host and influencer Toni Gonzaga.
A failure to listen. Is it cynical to think that vibe is the most important factor in any political campaign? Maybe. But these days, the vibe in elections across the world is heavily influenced by years of disinformation.
“Inflation is down to 2.5 in September. Immigration, the border crossings have been down since, have been going down since 2021. So fact versus perception. We know what Imelda [Marcos] said, perception determines reality. And I think from there alone, what you can begin to see is the impact of disinformation. I’d say eight years of disinformation,” said Maria Ressa, Rappler CEO, during the same panel discussion.
In the end, pundits reckoned that it was Trump and the Republican’s message on the economy that resonated the most with voters, especially in the crucial swing states.
“I think if you take a look at American polls, all the polls, whether it was right or left wing, said that Americans were deeply unhappy about the state of their country. It didn’t matter if you were a Republican or you were a Democrat,” said Ricky Carandang, a communications chief under the late Benigno Aquino III.
Even a Trump ad on transgender rights issues, Trump political director James Blaire said, was not really about transgender issues but the incumbent Democratic party’s “misplaced priorities.”
“People want the government to be doing what their priorities are and, frankly, spending taxpayer dollars to give transgender surgery… and that’s why the ad was affected; it’s about misplaced priorities, on behalf of a leader,” he told CNN.
Harris tried to rally a coalition built on defending American democracy. “Freedom,” her ads screamed as the Beyonce song with the same title announced the Vice President’s arrival. But what is this abstraction called democracy against the reality of groceries that are becoming too expensive to afford?
Change that’s coming. Tons of parallels have been drawn between former vice president Leni Robredo’s failed 2022 presidential run and Harris’ 2024 try for the White House. It makes sense. They’re both women, they both swooped in on the 11th hour, amid an internal crisis in the party or coalition they belonged to, and both came in with the odds stacked against them.
But it would not help to forget the painful lessons and blind spots of the 2016 presidential elections.
Nobody saw Rodrigo Duterte coming. He was not considered a serious contender for the presidency until he was. The Aquino administration then focused on then-vice president Jejomar Binay and newbie legislator Grace Poe as main contenders, even as administration bet Mar Roxas struggled in the polls.
While that was happening, the rambunctious mayor from Davao started drawing large crowds that he regaled with cheeky and sometimes lewd remarks and promises to kill without mercy. Change is coming, he vowed.
And Filipino voters believed him.
In 2024, Carandang added, the US made the same choice: of a candidate who was, yes, erratic and unpredictable, but promised dramatic change.
“That’s because people were sick and tired of the promise of incremental change. And they were willing to gamble their future on something that could offer possibly more dramatic and more meaningful change. I think there are many other reasons, right? People will blame the Democrats, they’ll blame the campaign. But the bottom line, I think, is that, that incremental change lost out to dramatic change,” he said. – Rappler.com