Read on Twitter
This is a very odd piece, especially this: "What is remarkable is the amount of money and effort that went to flip suburban women, who had no intention of voting Democratic at all." But um... https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-voting-rights-elections-84ef3db79532c0029894ff25a316370b https://twitter.com/PostOpinions/status/1332692621052039172
It's also weird to argue that Latino and Black voters "are far more complex and multifaceted than any party gives them credit for" and that when they voted GOP it "demonstrated independent thinking that went against predicted behavior" while painting white voters as a monolith.
It is absolutely true that, like in the past, more white women probably voted Republican than voted Democrat. But white women are also 41% of the electorate, and more closely divided between Republican and Democrat voters than any other group.
It just strikes me as weird to argue that it's short-sighted to treat Latino voters as a monolithic group (which it is!) in a piece arguing that you should treat white women, an even more divided group ... like a monolithic group.
It also does the same thing Trump does, which is use "suburban" as a synonym for "white." That's just not true. Rural areas are extremely white, but the suburbs are nearly as diverse as the country.
I have zero interest in defending white women who voted for Republicans. But Democrats should have an interest in winning elections, and "close to half of this group votes for you, clearly they are a lost cause" is really bad advice.
Especially when you consider what seems to push white women to vote for Democrats: Greater independence. Dems win majorities of young white women, single white women, and college-educated white women (and I would guess urban white women, but haven't seen data).
