By Meta-Content Generator A.J. Liebling with Youth Correspondent Maynard G. Krebs
We've all been there: you're embarking on a long trip and you find yourself stuck in an agonizing traffic jam. Eventually, you see the blue lights ahead and you realize there's been an accident.
As you get closer, you tell yourself you're not going to look. It's gross and pointless. Just keep your eyes on the road and your ears on your podcast. Then as you crawl by, you can't control yourself. You look. Just a glance at the twisted metal, the ambulances, the police. Finally, you break free, vaguely disgusted by your weakness.
![]() |
| It's like a Times focus group: you hate yourself for gawking at it. |
That's how we feel about New York Times Opinion focus groups, that flaming wreck of a concept supposedly intended to bring us snotty out-of-touch elites in touch with the hopes, dreams, fears, and thoughts of average Americans, at least as assembled by long-time Republican hack Frank Luntz and his minions.
The setup is the same: assemble a small group of people with supposedly similar voting patterns and demographics, ask them a series of dumb open-ended questions, and then print their answers without asking how they came to hold their ridiculous views. The invariable takeaway is despair at the Mitch McConnell-like state of your fellow citizens.
This week we are treated to the views of ten yutes who voted for the Mad King for reasons not readily accessible to them.
The groupmeister, or whatever you call them, launched into a series of stupid questions that lead to nothing, e.g. how do you think AI will affect your future? How the f*** would they know, except for the one poor soul who already got laid off due to AI. No useful information was generated.
Eventually they got to the money shot: What did these Mad King voters think about their boy now?
They're pretty content with their horrible decision. Why? Let's ask Christian, a Latino Republican:
So a Latino man (just like the ones murdered by ICE goons this week) likes the mass deportation of “dangerous people,” whatever that means.
Parenthetically, guys like Christian demonstrate why the Republican paranoia about immigration is unfounded. The fear used to be that all these illegals would magically become citizens (at best, about a ten year process), and then vote Democratic.
Yeah, not so much. Anyone who deals with immigrants knows full well that once their status is assured, they are perfectly happy to feed their former countrymen to the Republican sharks. As one of our colleagues, the daughter of Central American immigrants, put it about her relatives: “As soon as they make more than $50,000 a year, they vote Republican.”
It's the American way.
Now inquiring minds might want to ask Christian what's good about deporting hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children back to danger and misery, when only some of them are “dangerous.” But that would be an act of journalism, and thus antithetical to every principle of focus grouping (apparently).
And anyway, we have to get to Jake:
Which foreign policy stuff has been good, Jake? Launching an illegal war of choice against Iran, which we have lost decisively and humiliatingly? Abandoning Ukraine to Russian aggression? Destroying the NATO alliance? Threatening our allies like Canada and Denmark with conquest? Imposing illegal sales taxes on foreign imports?
That seems like an easy enough follow up question, but again, there's nothing to see here people, get back in your lane and make way for the tow truck.
It's time for the focus group to turn to a really pointless and unilluminating game: word association!
For twenty points and a chance at the Broyhill dinette set, what five words do you associate with Democrats?
Pride? That's why they won't vote Democratic? And what does that mean anyway? The idea that people should have the same basic rights regardless of sexual preference or identity is so horrifying to them that they would vote for an adjudicated sexual predator? Yes, the Democrats have their work cut out for them.
And Socialism? That's big nay too, possibly because for the past 100 years Republicans have smeared every Democrats from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Zohran Mamdani as the second coming of Joe Stalin. And it's worked, at least judging by these deep thinkers.
How could Democrats remove this dark stain? Maybe they could do so by supporting a social and political order that has directed almost all benefits of the last 40 years of economic growth to a tiny insatiable plutocratic elite.
The captious among you may respond that that's exactly what Democrats have done for a generation or more, and it has availed them not, judging by these bright young exemplars of America's future.
So what have we learned from this focus group?
That's easy: nothing.
But the point is not to explore why voters think they way they do. That would be journalism.
The point is to provide fodder to Harvard-Dalton gasbags and other clowns who like to lecture Democrats on how they must reach out to young voters like these by abandoning anything that Republicans could smear as “Socialism” or “overly inclusive.”
The problem with that argument, aside from its moral and intellectual vacuity, is that it never works. No matter how weak Democrats are on correcting the manifest injustices and evil of our society, Republicans and their media enablers will smear them. So moving to a non-existent center ensures electoral futility by alienating the large progressive base that animates the Democratic Party while failing to appeal to well-informed independent thinkers like those found in Times focus groups.
If so, then the Democrats should stop cowering every time some bigot whines about something they heard from a steroid-crazed moron like Pride of Newton South Joe Rogan or creepy Jesse Watters and actually stand and fight.
Maybe these focus group dopes have something to teach us after all. We, unlike them, stand corrected.



















%20Post%20by%20@statuscoupnews.bsky.social%20%E2%80%94%20Bluesky.png)
%20Explore%20%E2%80%94%20Bluesky.png)
