p. 32: “Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns, and don’t assume identity politics will hold male voters of color.”
p. 8: “Winning Anywhere means providing for a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South, who have come to believe they are not included in the Democratic vision of a stronger and more dynamic America for everyone. Millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to healthcare, manufacturing and job losses, and a failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party.”
Also it kind of conflicts with the main economic message of “shut up everything is fine actually, your unjustified complaining will curse the vibes for the rest of us”
I suppose they’re correct in that analysis if you narrow in “voter” to mean “person who was split between which party to vote for, but. they’re definitely going to vote no matter what and also they do not care about foreign policy or most domestic policy” which I suppose at this point is more or less whatever remains of their electorate
They mention that they targeted three kinds of voters, but two of them were pretty much the same kind.
From the outset, the campaign set three targeting priorities. There were “re-engagement
targets” – voters who had supported Obama or Biden, but were infrequent voters who needed
persuasion to vote and to vote for Biden and then Harris – mostly younger voters or voters of
color. There were “traditional swing voters,” these are voters who have largely moved towards
Democrats in the Trump era, mostly college educated suburban voters who were not field
targets, but were tracked for support.
The third and smallest target group was “peel-away Trump voters,” who had perhaps voted for
Trump in 2016 or 2020, but may have been with Democrats on abortion or who were alienated
with the chaos and corruption of the Trump era.
This is a great exercise for therapy if anyone wants to help me out.
In that section about not assuming that identity politics will hold voters of color, the negation makes me really angry really quickly. “Oh, so you were assuming that black people like it when you say black people? End of story?”
But if I’m going to not be emotionally volatile, what’s the alternative? Maybe I think about how little the author gave a shit about writing. They’re not actively thinking that POC are so gullible, they’re just not even putting any effort into the theory of mind for the essay. It’s clear when they don’t even make a conclusion or verify anything they’re saying. So in that sense, maybe the interpretation that this is an admission of a vile mind is not the only one possible, maybe it’s an artifact of a mind that did not find this work to be important. This person isn’t representing the whole DNC either, this was just some suit filing in a mad lib. If they’re not showing what they think then there’s no need to read deeply into what they say.
Does it absolve the DNC of their transgressions? No! But it’s a forgiveness of expecting them to give a shit about what they say. Caring about words, their meaning, and other people is a gift that makes me unique and kind.
Twice they say that “Demographics are not destiny” but the best they can do to elaborate is “Context and execution matter.” A suit filling in a mad lib is spot on.
Does it basically say “voters are stupid, and we weren’t racist or sexist enough”?
Why, yes.
p. 32: “Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns, and don’t assume identity politics will hold male voters of color.”
p. 8: “Winning Anywhere means providing for a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South, who have come to believe they are not included in the Democratic vision of a stronger and more dynamic America for everyone. Millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to healthcare, manufacturing and job losses, and a failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party.”
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN SHITLIBS
Also it kind of conflicts with the main economic message of “shut up everything is fine actually, your unjustified complaining will curse the vibes for the rest of us”
stronger is vaguely comprehensible but idk what the fuck more dynamic is supposed to be
“dynamic” is a way to imply changes without promising to change anything
It means building AI datacenters.
I suppose they’re correct in that analysis if you narrow in “voter” to mean “person who was split between which party to vote for, but. they’re definitely going to vote no matter what and also they do not care about foreign policy or most domestic policy” which I suppose at this point is more or less whatever remains of their electorate
They mention that they targeted three kinds of voters, but two of them were pretty much the same kind.
Weird how they ignored the 50%+ of the population that fit into the segment of “not voter” and instead decided to focus on
And also a large part of group 1 probably fit into the segment of people being anti-genocide
This is a great exercise for therapy if anyone wants to help me out.
In that section about not assuming that identity politics will hold voters of color, the negation makes me really angry really quickly. “Oh, so you were assuming that black people like it when you say black people? End of story?”
But if I’m going to not be emotionally volatile, what’s the alternative? Maybe I think about how little the author gave a shit about writing. They’re not actively thinking that POC are so gullible, they’re just not even putting any effort into the theory of mind for the essay. It’s clear when they don’t even make a conclusion or verify anything they’re saying. So in that sense, maybe the interpretation that this is an admission of a vile mind is not the only one possible, maybe it’s an artifact of a mind that did not find this work to be important. This person isn’t representing the whole DNC either, this was just some suit filing in a mad lib. If they’re not showing what they think then there’s no need to read deeply into what they say.
Does it absolve the DNC of their transgressions? No! But it’s a forgiveness of expecting them to give a shit about what they say. Caring about words, their meaning, and other people is a gift that makes me unique and kind.
Twice they say that “Demographics are not destiny” but the best they can do to elaborate is “Context and execution matter.” A suit filling in a mad lib is spot on.