2018 and Suburban Voters

This was the result that I expected; I've been pretty checked out of politics the last year or so, but even from a pretty distant view it looked like the Republicans were solid in the Senate and that a typical non-presidential flip was to be expected in the house. As everyone has already pointed out, this wasn't a blue wave – not even close – but it did show that Democrats are making gains in suburban districts which were, until very recently, considered favorable to Republicans. I wrote a whole sperg-out about this phenomenon, and how it can be applied to future digital messaging campaigns. Buckle up and enjoy the autism:

2018 and the Suburban Voter

I think something is going on the suburbs; they are, by design, dominated by what remains of the middle class – plus the necessary service industry to support them. Even if wages are falling and the "middle class" is by and large disappearing, I still think it's fair to talk about suburbanites as situated between the traditional polarities of rural poor and urban affluence which are traditionally talked about when it comes to the constitution of American society. To live in a suburb means you're decently off by global standards – you've got a car, for instance, and can enjoy reasonable access to large suburban shopping centers which provide a staggering variety of consumer goods at very low prices when compared to those charged in urban centers. This lifestyle is isolating, however… Whereas rural citizens may be close to one another peronally by virtue of their relative isolation from others and urbanites have no choice but to maintain a large number of day-to-day personal associations, suburbanites live relatively cloistered lives – they move from car to work to shops to home and, if they don't want to, can exist without any close personal associations at all. It's a common place to say that you see people acting weird at Wal Mart, and the reason for this is that Wal Mart is a totally neutral space in a cultural sense… it is the ur-suburban institution in that it is just a giant box that admits anyone, ignores distinction and provides equal economic service to all. It is, like suburban life itself, inherently impersonal. Which means you can crap yourself on aisle 6 while riding in a mobility scooter and nobody will say shit. At Wal Mart, this person is just a consumer – same as anyone else with the tiny amount of money necessary to justify their presence in the box.

Attached: 30yoboomer.jpg (225x225, 11.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

stream.me/shortpoem
twitter.com/AnonBabble

My theory is that such impersonal society is cut off, in a way that urban and rural districts are not, from the idea of individual distinctiveness. The suburbanite is aware at all times that they exist primarily in an economic way – their day to day interactions are overwhelmingly of the Wal Mart variety. They are consumers, even to themselves… treated respectfully, but only because they can afford to be. Outside of the privacy of their homes and personal associations, they are neither hated nor loved – merely tolerated.

Sociologists since the mid-century have noted that urban populations and rural populations are obsessed with one another in America; each defines itself in cooperation with and opposition to the other. Suburbanites, however, are largely undefined and exist in opposition to no one in particular. I think this makes them overly concerned with maintaining a connection to the larger society which they are economically, spatially and personally alienated from.

Republicans used to dominate the suburbs, I think, because the silent majority strategy which dominated the end of the twentieth century in their electoral efforts flattered suburbanites with a self image as ignored but vital; representing the true working strength of America and proof of the virtues of American free enterprise in the ease of their lifestyle. Republican messaging has grown distant from this approach … instead focusing on "disrupting" established political orthodoxy or acting on behalf of increasingly dis-empowered rural concerns, many of which are religious. Suburbanites, as I said, have it pretty good. They don't want to be "disrupted." And their cultural isolation opens them up to any messaging which promises to make them feel connected to the cultural conversation as a whole.

Democrats in this cycle have relied on a constant barrage of negative press; they have in fact portrayed the country as under open foreign attack and in some cases criminal occupation. Rather than offering a positive self image to suburbanites as Nixon did in 1968 / 1972 and Reagan / Bush did throughout the 1980s (even Clinton used a version of it – to great success) the present media environment has become threatening to the suburban ego. Either you vote against Trump and his party, or you are a kind of political criminal – aligned with foreign powers, Nazi under-men and worse. This kind of messaging didn't triumph under Bush, but it worked this time around.

I think the decline of Church attendance and the atomization of the family have hit suburbs worse than anywhere. Their essentially alienated lifestyle is more alienated than it has ever been, and that makes them vulnerable to guilt purveyed by the essentially urban mass media. Again and again, the message is reinforced: either side with urban centers, or be left behind culturally and economically like rural communities have been. If you are not with us, you are against us – and in league with foreign powers. While a minority of suburban voters certainly took voting Democratic this time around as a moral imperative, I think the silent majority was essentially threatened into signalling themselves as politically acceptable as a means of personal survival.

A play to suburbanites must be a feature of our messaging in 2020. I see the bones of something useful in the 30 y.o, boomer meme and depictions of suburban idealism which portray residents of these communities as fulfilled, clever and outside the accepted urban / rural polarity. A positive self image will be much more appealing than an inducement to fear, and may be of great utility.

Attached: 30yoboomer2.jpg (1800x1080, 467.91K)

nobody cares, mr blogpost

sage

Good autism. I think you hit the yid on the nose with this one

It should be pointed out that these "affluent" and "middle class" faggots have less disposable income than rural whites they see themselves as standing above.

It should be pointed out that these "affluent" and "middle class" faggots have less disposable income than rural whites they see themselves as standing above.

That doesn't matter as much because of the superior access to resources enjoyed by suburbanites; they may make less but their standard of living is at least perceived to be higher because of higher convenience

Attached: autism 2.jpg (400x400, 23.26K)

Fuck off faggot. Nobody cares about the republican party

the internal collapse of the republican party during the Obama years made it an effective vehicle for advancing the necessary strategy of political chaos which will be produce the most fertile ground for political reinvention in this country

Attached: HARDCOREQT.gif (800x450, 477.01K)

Until the day they need that extra liquidity.
Urbanism is cattle farming tbh. Worse than normal slavery and of course, serfdom.