I can Kreskin the authors, too.

Last edited Mon May 26, 2025, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It is clearly a BIG problem and maybe a big part of the problem is that we are trying to learn about men from a 40 something year old Israeli woman. Clearly she holds the key to men and how they think.
I am kind of at a loss as to where to start on the stupidity. It could be this, the person we turned to decode men is Anat Shenker-Osorio.

I am kind of at a loss as to where to start on the stupidity. It could be this:
After around 250 focus groups where she asks people to compare political parties to animals, This is how she finds their deepest darkest feelings on politics. Please go away, the stupid burns. She is a long time Democratic strategist and you will be shocked to know, while employing this brilliant strategy, we have been hemorrhaging male voters. I wonder why.

Republicans are seen as “apex predators,” like lions, tigers and sharks — beasts that take what they want when they want it. Democrats are typically tagged as tortoises, slugs or sloths: slow, plodding, passive. We pay for this stupidity.

This is a clown show.

Do you know that when things are in crisis women are attracted to assholes rather than nice guys?

Should we not study this and its effect on politics?

We need to realize that a major block of voters 49%ish (men) don’t like the Democratic Party. Where can we connect with them and how is the question. Playing silly animal game questions is not the answer.

at them all. Right?

Enough of the bullshit

It’s bullshit and why we are losing the male vote.

Last edited Tue May 27, 2025, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

It a communications technique.

of understanding the typical American male to an Ivy League educated woman who uses words like "intersectionality" - but I thought that joke would be unfair and over the top. Goddamn it, it turns out I was being too generous.

About some of the focus groups you’ve been in.

let's pile on the poor clueless and woebegotten Dems for our failure to (checks notes) understand the sickly twisted VICTIMHOOD (as in fragility) of these misogynistic butt-hurt "apex predators" who are out for revenge because, have you heard? - they're 'being replaced' so Dems best better get on board with the messaging.

(Pryor to Wilder: "Get bad." )

all served up, mind you, by a political writer who prides himself as being fiercely Independent...

which, btw IMO, translates these days as being TOO much of a fence sitter for my druthers (aka, part of the problem).

So, think I'll file Goddard in the same drawer with Todd, and Maher.

trying to improve their communications strategy and wimpy image. It seems like the sane thing to do.

And unlike the perpetual consultants (read: friends and family) they dump millions of dollars on every cycle, I’d actually net some voters.

If not, it shows intense disconnection from the current situation.

However it might work as political "sleight of hard", I hope that's what it is.

Should we just ignore the election?

What animal does the Democratic Party remind them of.

Granted, this is some ugly coverage on the part of the NYT, but it's images like this driving young people away.
This and "strongly worded letters" from Sen. Schumer are at the core of why Democratic outreach to young men fails. AOC and Gov. Walz were going in the right direction when they streamed together on Twitch, but they needed to do it often and regularly to build the audience and have a stronger impact.

The appearance of aloof disconnected academics and aristocrats holding secret meetings in luxurious settings makes young men want to kick our asses, not join our party. F47's outreach to young men succeeded through a deceptive appearance of open comprehensibility, similar to the experience of watching professional sports. You don't need to gather in a luxury hotel to figure this much out, a zoom call would work.

The best thing about this article is the vast majority of young men will never see it.

The American Legion would rent them some meeting space.

You can always count on the NYTimes, can't you?

speak any lunacy they choose, engage in whatever outrage,

yet it's supposed to be Democrats' fault that a significant enough number of democracy saboteurs, racists, miscreants, malcontents, and the ever so willingly bamboozled,

CHOSE a fascist who promised to be a DICTATOR DAY ONE. As if the choice between either a democracy or a dictatorship wasn't blindingly clear.

Trump's voters CHOSE to endorse, no, EAT UP his brand of venom. And I hope they choke on it.

#stopblamingdemocrats

about them ?????


The stupidity of Republican talking points has only gained any credibility
through continuous repetition....

The 'Big Lies' have only been effective because the GOP leaders have been a "broken record" about them---

and the "Big Truths" cannot expect to be effective without such repetition...

Let’s try to get back normal fucking people by treating them like they are normal.

don't know what that would be

Porpoise with a purpose?

... and use phrases like "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" because yeah, that's going to win them over.

As another poster said, it's more likely to make them want to kick Democrat's asses.

With their objective statement.

It’s with the results of the objective statement.

Nominate a straight, middle-aged, white, Protestant man and don't change a word of the platform. And we'll win.

I hate it, but we need to deal with facts. And we need to win.

However I would take what is part of a Justice Democrat or Bernie Sanders' platform and make that the Democratic Party platform. As far as to what is important to me it remains policy over the identity of the candidate. It really doesn't matter much who the face of it is.

I just don't know if that alone is enough to win as white men make up only about 31% of the US population even though they are over-represented in Congress. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote even though she had a high unfavorable rating which is probably a factor as to why Trump won the electoral college but sexism did play a factor there. Harris didn't do well in the primaries so I don't think she was the best to take on Trump especially when she didn't distance herself much from Biden when many voters didn't want another Biden-Trump matchup but she did well considering how bad Biden was polling and the country was still split along the same lines as the last 3 elections. I think we need to ditch conventional wisdom to an extent if we are able to win again with Obama-like landslides. When he ran in the primaries he was compared to McGovern.

The average voter doesn't actually know what the policies are. They vote for how much they identify with the person fronting the party.

Of course, I believe there is a LOT of room to improve how we communicate the policies so a percentage of voters WILL see that one party works for them and the other is just a mouthpiece for billionaires with their hands out, but that's a different discussion.