Hearing from these ladies gave me renewed hope for 2024. If Trump wants to get reelected, he will have to win back the swing voters who turned against him in 2020. It seems to me he is doing NOTHING to woo them back - and this focus group confirms that.
Something really struck me listening to a group of these Focus Groups:
The reach and influence of the Fox News/Republican Hate machine. They identify and target specific politicians, over and over again, day in, day out. In this podcast, I found almost all the group to be educated, thoughtful, and fair. Except, they likely had no idea why they have a negative opinion of somebody. I've challenged people on this topic, "Explain why Pelosi is so bad?" Same for Abrams, if you listen very hard, you can hear the through-line to the hate machine talking points. If you ask me to explain why I think McConnell is toxic to our political system, I will back it with specific examples, going back more than a decade. I could talk for 10 minutes or more on the topic, and then just to be mean, I could talk about his appearance or tone. Just the opposite with the Republican hate machine. It is as effective as it is insidious. Uh... But thanks for the great podcast.
3rd party lady needs to review the history of 3rd parties in the last forty years and explain how her candidate ISN'T a stalking horse for the Rs she rejects.
And the idea of running the country as a business makes me wish they'd reconsider just what that means.
Yes I would like to understand the run country as a business argument as well. Businesses should be cut throat, they are there to make money, they are supposed to do layoffs, give preference to their customers and they make decisions quarter to quarter. That would be a horrible way to run the country. Where will you ship your retired and the disabled? Will you stop supporting states that don't contribute and need federal help? What happens with natural disasters ? Will you 'acquire' weaker countrues ? Such an odd argument this.
The lady who hasn't gotten around to informing herself about the Republican and Democratic candidates because she's been too busy researching third party candidates made me want to start beating my head against the wall. Some kind soul should take her aside and tell her that if she really wants to waste her vote that badly, she's doing it wrong: it doesn't require all that work. And no, most of us don't realistically "have another choice", whatever she would like to believe. Reality is real.
SARAH please read! Please include more direct comments from voters in the podcast going forward! You & guest are great, give just a little more comments (no beeps please).
I forgot that many voters form casual opinions of candidates. Businessman was a word they heard more than once and it affected their vote. Some women don't want other women in power, I guess it's easier to assume a woman is acting on emotion rather than careful consideration.
In casual conversation, instead of saying Trump will end democracy, or there will be a constitutional crisis if he doesn't leave office next time, perhaps it would be more effective to say things like "he lies too much for me" or "I don't think he fixed the border." In other words, Bulwark readers, we need to dumb down so that the casual voters might remember something you said that helps them choose not-Trump or not-MAGA. And "a woman should be able to make decisions about her own life" is a winner. Sorry if this offends, but another winner is "I don't want to vote for someone who wants to control my sex life, my marriage, and when I have children."
On this podcast's format, it was really fascinating to hear how a focus group is conducted. But really, I can't take this much raw footage. I prefer aggregated data, a few particularly telling sound bites, and overwhelming rational and sane discussion with your excellent guest analysts.
On voting third party. I have voted third party in presidential elections 5 times, starting with John Anderson in my second presidential election, Ross Perot twice, Ralph Nader in 2000, and Jill Stein in 2012, just because I recognized that based on the state I live in it wasn't going to affect the outcome of the election, thanks to the Electoral College system. I always hated it when people would say things like a vote for Anderson was a vote for Reagan, or a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Not sure what the argument would be on votes for Perot and Stein, as Democrats won those 3 elections. Technically, my vote for Ralph Nader didn't elect George W. Bush (Utah's electoral college votes did, so it didn't really matter for whom I voted), but on the ballot in Florida, Nader did damage to Al Gore. Now my feeling is that it's a nice fantasy to think that a third party vote is a vote on principle, or a protest against the established 2 parties, and that it's going to make any difference. Obviously, I couldn't stand Bill Clinton, as I voted for Perot twice (who has done the best of all third party presidential candidates, but not even close to enough), and I wasn't crazy about Hillary; but regardless of how my state's electoral college votes were going to go, I wasn't taking any chances in 2016 and held my nose and voted for her. The Electoral College is an aberration that doesn't exist in state-wide elections, so the calculation with third parties there is very different. Consider Tea Party wins in 2010, 2012, as the most successful third party gambit at the state level. And in the end, they're really just far-right Republicans now. A voter needs to think really hard about from which main party candidate that third party candidate is siphoning votes. If you can't stomach the candidate who is likely to win, because 20%, 10%, even 5% of the electorate voted third party, then don't vote third party. Before I ever vote third party again, I want to be in a state with open primaries and ranked choice voting. Then I can vote for whom I want twice.
On money in politics, thank Citizens United. Rational campaign finance reform is out of reach.
I prefer the aggregated data and analysis too, with illustrations from the raw input. Maybe I've just been reading too much of JVL's stuff, but I start getting pretty depressed when I listen for too long to my fellow voters describe their thought processes. I soon start thinking that I'd rather hear about their sex lives that about how they decide to vote -- and I don't want to hear about their sex lives at all!!!
This was awesome...those women are fiesty...lol..I could see myself being friends with them.
It has been illuminating and hopeful to me to realize that so many conservative women are also anti being told what we can or can not to with our bodies...women solidarity is strong, and we will , again, most likely determine what happens in November...yea us!
I liked this , but I also like the commentary, especially the guests with Sarah...would like some combo
Also, weidly , this comes out on Saturday, but, I never get the email till Sunday
I really liked hearing the full focus group session. It gives an understanding of where the participants stand more than what I got from the previous podcasts. I think it would be beneficial if Sarah could follow it up with a, possibly separate, analysis of the groups.
Also surprising that several people mentioned that they were embarrassed by the fact that the disgraced ex-president had made us a laughingstock around the world.
It was surprising that when asked how things are going only one person mentioned the economy and no one mentioned gas prices or inflation. Everybody mentioned abortion. Multiple times.
After reading the comments it looks like I am an outlier, but this conversation gave me a lot of hope. The majority of these women seem very thoughtful and relatively well informed, and repelled by the extreme GOP candidates.
I truly enjoy every The Focus Group pod, but this week was awesome being able to hear more of the focus groups answers. However, I did miss Sarah and a guests comments and commentary….so maybe a little more from the focus group plus Sarah and guest?!
BTW…..a new listener joined me today and she loved it as well.
The one woman who lambasted everyone about Joe Biden's age was PHENOMENAL! More than that, you could tell that it was clear she knew her stuff about politics, her opinion carried a LOT of weight with the other participants. It was like they really didn't understand what was going behind the scenes, and now they do because she relayed a lot of TRUTH to them.
Finally, that one who said she disconnected from main stream media probably doesn't even know what main stream media actual is. Cable news is not main stream media in my opinion, but biased media. Local news, BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC etc., is main stream media. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Newmax are all biased. So she "disconnected" herself from bias, to actual main stream media when she started following local news. You can't make this stuff up.
Hearing from these ladies gave me renewed hope for 2024. If Trump wants to get reelected, he will have to win back the swing voters who turned against him in 2020. It seems to me he is doing NOTHING to woo them back - and this focus group confirms that.
I really appreciate this the way it was presented. Really interesting one. I liked hearing each person’s extensive opinions and comments
Something really struck me listening to a group of these Focus Groups:
The reach and influence of the Fox News/Republican Hate machine. They identify and target specific politicians, over and over again, day in, day out. In this podcast, I found almost all the group to be educated, thoughtful, and fair. Except, they likely had no idea why they have a negative opinion of somebody. I've challenged people on this topic, "Explain why Pelosi is so bad?" Same for Abrams, if you listen very hard, you can hear the through-line to the hate machine talking points. If you ask me to explain why I think McConnell is toxic to our political system, I will back it with specific examples, going back more than a decade. I could talk for 10 minutes or more on the topic, and then just to be mean, I could talk about his appearance or tone. Just the opposite with the Republican hate machine. It is as effective as it is insidious. Uh... But thanks for the great podcast.
3rd party lady needs to review the history of 3rd parties in the last forty years and explain how her candidate ISN'T a stalking horse for the Rs she rejects.
And the idea of running the country as a business makes me wish they'd reconsider just what that means.
Yes I would like to understand the run country as a business argument as well. Businesses should be cut throat, they are there to make money, they are supposed to do layoffs, give preference to their customers and they make decisions quarter to quarter. That would be a horrible way to run the country. Where will you ship your retired and the disabled? Will you stop supporting states that don't contribute and need federal help? What happens with natural disasters ? Will you 'acquire' weaker countrues ? Such an odd argument this.
Part of the whole “tax and spent Other People’s Money” fallacy.
I liked hearing the lengthy and unfiltered comments of the focus group participants, but a little summary in the end would be nice to wrap it all up.
The lady who hasn't gotten around to informing herself about the Republican and Democratic candidates because she's been too busy researching third party candidates made me want to start beating my head against the wall. Some kind soul should take her aside and tell her that if she really wants to waste her vote that badly, she's doing it wrong: it doesn't require all that work. And no, most of us don't realistically "have another choice", whatever she would like to believe. Reality is real.
SARAH please read! Please include more direct comments from voters in the podcast going forward! You & guest are great, give just a little more comments (no beeps please).
I forgot that many voters form casual opinions of candidates. Businessman was a word they heard more than once and it affected their vote. Some women don't want other women in power, I guess it's easier to assume a woman is acting on emotion rather than careful consideration.
In casual conversation, instead of saying Trump will end democracy, or there will be a constitutional crisis if he doesn't leave office next time, perhaps it would be more effective to say things like "he lies too much for me" or "I don't think he fixed the border." In other words, Bulwark readers, we need to dumb down so that the casual voters might remember something you said that helps them choose not-Trump or not-MAGA. And "a woman should be able to make decisions about her own life" is a winner. Sorry if this offends, but another winner is "I don't want to vote for someone who wants to control my sex life, my marriage, and when I have children."
On this podcast's format, it was really fascinating to hear how a focus group is conducted. But really, I can't take this much raw footage. I prefer aggregated data, a few particularly telling sound bites, and overwhelming rational and sane discussion with your excellent guest analysts.
On voting third party. I have voted third party in presidential elections 5 times, starting with John Anderson in my second presidential election, Ross Perot twice, Ralph Nader in 2000, and Jill Stein in 2012, just because I recognized that based on the state I live in it wasn't going to affect the outcome of the election, thanks to the Electoral College system. I always hated it when people would say things like a vote for Anderson was a vote for Reagan, or a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Not sure what the argument would be on votes for Perot and Stein, as Democrats won those 3 elections. Technically, my vote for Ralph Nader didn't elect George W. Bush (Utah's electoral college votes did, so it didn't really matter for whom I voted), but on the ballot in Florida, Nader did damage to Al Gore. Now my feeling is that it's a nice fantasy to think that a third party vote is a vote on principle, or a protest against the established 2 parties, and that it's going to make any difference. Obviously, I couldn't stand Bill Clinton, as I voted for Perot twice (who has done the best of all third party presidential candidates, but not even close to enough), and I wasn't crazy about Hillary; but regardless of how my state's electoral college votes were going to go, I wasn't taking any chances in 2016 and held my nose and voted for her. The Electoral College is an aberration that doesn't exist in state-wide elections, so the calculation with third parties there is very different. Consider Tea Party wins in 2010, 2012, as the most successful third party gambit at the state level. And in the end, they're really just far-right Republicans now. A voter needs to think really hard about from which main party candidate that third party candidate is siphoning votes. If you can't stomach the candidate who is likely to win, because 20%, 10%, even 5% of the electorate voted third party, then don't vote third party. Before I ever vote third party again, I want to be in a state with open primaries and ranked choice voting. Then I can vote for whom I want twice.
On money in politics, thank Citizens United. Rational campaign finance reform is out of reach.
I prefer the aggregated data and analysis too, with illustrations from the raw input. Maybe I've just been reading too much of JVL's stuff, but I start getting pretty depressed when I listen for too long to my fellow voters describe their thought processes. I soon start thinking that I'd rather hear about their sex lives that about how they decide to vote -- and I don't want to hear about their sex lives at all!!!
I always feel better after reading JVL's stuff. But voter's thought processes can be unnerving. :(
This was awesome...those women are fiesty...lol..I could see myself being friends with them.
It has been illuminating and hopeful to me to realize that so many conservative women are also anti being told what we can or can not to with our bodies...women solidarity is strong, and we will , again, most likely determine what happens in November...yea us!
I liked this , but I also like the commentary, especially the guests with Sarah...would like some combo
Also, weidly , this comes out on Saturday, but, I never get the email till Sunday
I really liked hearing the full focus group session. It gives an understanding of where the participants stand more than what I got from the previous podcasts. I think it would be beneficial if Sarah could follow it up with a, possibly separate, analysis of the groups.
Also surprising that several people mentioned that they were embarrassed by the fact that the disgraced ex-president had made us a laughingstock around the world.
It was surprising that when asked how things are going only one person mentioned the economy and no one mentioned gas prices or inflation. Everybody mentioned abortion. Multiple times.
After reading the comments it looks like I am an outlier, but this conversation gave me a lot of hope. The majority of these women seem very thoughtful and relatively well informed, and repelled by the extreme GOP candidates.
Good deal on the pod switch as to paywall...I am a subscriber so ok with me.
I truly enjoy every The Focus Group pod, but this week was awesome being able to hear more of the focus groups answers. However, I did miss Sarah and a guests comments and commentary….so maybe a little more from the focus group plus Sarah and guest?!
BTW…..a new listener joined me today and she loved it as well.
The one woman who lambasted everyone about Joe Biden's age was PHENOMENAL! More than that, you could tell that it was clear she knew her stuff about politics, her opinion carried a LOT of weight with the other participants. It was like they really didn't understand what was going behind the scenes, and now they do because she relayed a lot of TRUTH to them.
Finally, that one who said she disconnected from main stream media probably doesn't even know what main stream media actual is. Cable news is not main stream media in my opinion, but biased media. Local news, BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC etc., is main stream media. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Newmax are all biased. So she "disconnected" herself from bias, to actual main stream media when she started following local news. You can't make this stuff up.