Democrats spending millions to learn how to speak to 'American Men' and win back the working class
Democrats have blown millions of dollars on efforts to appeal to "American Men," who turned to President Donald Trump in droves on election day, in the hopes of winning back the working class, according to a report.
Democrats have spent $20 million on their efforts, with donors and strategists holing up in luxury hotel rooms brainstorming how to convince working-class men to return to the party, according to a New York Times report.
The plan, code-named SAM, or "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan," promises to use the funds to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces," according to the report.
If there's one thing that men say is the most important factor in their voting decisions, it's syntax.
And virality. Everyone knows that men love virality. How we all get so stoked over Buzzfeed personality quizzes and sharing them with our BFFs. It's one of the most well-known of masculine traits, wanting to "join" into something that is momentarily popular.
As the Times described it, the reports "can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places."
The effort also recommends Democrats buy advertisements in video games, among other things, the Times reported.
Oh wow, that is some real outside-the-box thinking.
"Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone," the plan urges.
That sounds a lot more concrete and real, but note they're only talking about chaning the tone of their moralizing, scolding, men-denigrating (menigrating?) policies, not the policies themselves.
They're telling their Nasty Women to change their tone when pitching policies that disadvantage and degrade men -- but not to change the policies that disadvantage and degrade men.
In other words, they're telling leftwing women to Smile More when they promote policies intended to degrade men.
...
Democrats have "lost credibility by being seen as alien on cultural issues," McCrary added.
Speaking of: The NY Times almost confesses that Democrats suffered a "cultural rejection" in 2024.
I say "almost" because the Times will only say that the loss "felt like a cultural rejection."
Six months after President Trump swept the battleground states, the Democratic Party is still sifting through the wreckage. Its standing has plunged to startling new lows -- 27 percent approval in a recent NBC News poll, the weakest in surveys dating to 1990 -- after a defeat that felt like both a political and cultural rejection.
Communities that Democrats had come to count on for a generation or more -- young people, Black voters, Latinos -- all veered toward the right in 2024, some of them sharply. And unlike Mr. Trump's win in 2016, his victory last year could not be waved away as an outlier after he won the popular vote for the first time.
The stark reality is that the downward trend for Democrats stretches back further than a single election. Republicans have been gaining ground in voter registration for years. Working-class voters of every race have been steadily drifting toward the G.O.P. And Democrats are increasingly perceived as the party of college-educated elites, the defenders of a political and economic system that most Americans feel is failing them.
Everything's always "feelings" with these fucking commie yoyos.
The Democrats' House of Ideas is really firing on all one cylinder. They've also brainstormed the genius idea of setting up a "Shadow Cabinet" of liberals who will, get this, attack Trump.
But it won't just be Jasmine Ratchet attacking Trump. No, Jasmine Ratchet will be named "Shadow Cabinet Secretary of DEI" or something and attack Trump under that entirely fictitious aegis.
POLITICO shares an idea first proposed by Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin and decided to go one better: create a "shadow cabinet," as is often done in parliamentary systems. The idea behind a shadow cabinet is to have one figure who speaks for the opposition on a particular issue. A shadow Secretary of State, a shadow Secretary of Defense, and so on. Instead of having many voices drowning each other out, pick one for each issue--presumably your best.
It is a stupid idea--it's one virtue being that transnationalists love the idea of committees, parliaments, and copying European ways of doing things. Even the average European on the street doesn't think that way, and Americans would be hard-pressed to name more than two or three cabinet members, but people who admire technocracies gravitate to just this sort of thing.
Slotkin suggested ranking members on Congressional committees for the role (the ranking member is the lead person from the opposition party on any committee; in this case, they are all Democrats because they are in the minority), which is an even more stupid idea. Nobody has a clue who they are and couldn't care less, so Bill Scher came up with his own list.
It's a winner, for many reasons. Democrats will probably like it because it includes celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals, and Republicans would love to see it implemented because it is yet another stupid idea that will move the needle not at all. Not one of these individuals could possibly fix what ails the Democrats, which is less any one particular policy idea than an unmistakable contempt for the ordinary American...
So, who are the leading lights of the Democratic Party, according to Scher?
How about Bill Nye, The Science Guy? Or Gisele Fetterman?
My favorite is Letitia James as shadow Attorney General.
I think the Politico proposal is basically an admission that the people who are currently the most camera-hungry to attack Trump are ratchet idiots like Jasmine Crocket, and Politico is not-so-subtly recommending that Jasmine Crocket be sidelined so that real deep thinkers of the Democrat Party like, uh, Mark Cuban can be spotlighted.
I think it's also a stealth attempt to find a 2028 presidential candidate from outside the current crop of sure losers.