LoL, me pointing out that she is, in fact, a billionaire based on sales, is a fact, not a love letter.
You did more than that.
I can see that it seems that way to you. I’m surprised, to be candid. There are some entertainers that I fawn over (Olga Korbut, Simone Biles, Jim Rice, Bobby Orr, Bonnie Raitt, Julia Child). Swift is not one of them. But, perhaps that all looks the same to you. It feels very very different to me.
She has managed to take over a billion dollars into her pocket from people who like what she is selling.
So did Musk. So did Bezos.
But it is obvious to the most casual observe that Swift did it by
forming a relationship with her customers, and they did not, and hence the very very different reception.
This was not obvious to you?
Why would you want to introduce the hyperbole, the inaccuracy, of saying my description of her value to the democratic party strategists equals “fawning”?
Because of the uncritically positive portrayal of her in your post.
In what way were you expecting me to be critical when discussing her ability to act as an impetus factor for her fans to vote? What did you expect to hear otherwise?
Fact: Her audience is a valuable demographic. And there are a lot of them. Dem strategists would be fools to miss that fact.
And yet Dem strategists do not see my demographic as "valuable".
What is your demographic and what is it that makes you think Dems don’t see them as valuable?
In reality, Dems are aware of
many, disparate, distinct and unconnected valuable demographics, and they understand that they need to reach them all. Swift only appeals to one demographic. They are not enough to win elections alone, though. We all know that.
So what demographic are you?
You keep telling yourself that you want to believe a thing without checking it. Go right ahead.
Do you have a citation that "vast majority" of Swifties are 18-34 or not?
This is interesting. You had at least two choices in this thought of yours. You could have been curious about what demographic she can get messages to (this is the area of interest for political strategists, and people who are discussing their choices in good faith), or you could have declared that she has no value and people talking about her are just fawning (this the area of interest for grievance whiners). You chose the latter. What is the value in declaring a statement and not caring if it is true, and then arguing against people who suggest to you that you are wrong? I mean, it is
so simple, like the jitterbug, to not be wrong in this. Just look it up.
Being curious would have been so easy. Except for possibly the hurdle of acknowledging that she has value in society. That was perhaps too big a hurdle to overcome.
From statista:
According to a survey from March 2023 among U.S. Taylor Swift fans, also called 'Swifties', the largest share of Swift fans were in the group of millenials. The second largest share was within the group of baby boomers, followed by Gen X. In 2023, Swift announced her first tour in years, called 'Era', which already caused chaos when her significant fan base tried to purchase tickets for the long anticipated concerts.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1372971/taylor-swift-fans-by-generation/
“Rhea” said:
Is it a personal attack to suppose that you might not value women for the value they bring - in an exchange where you are disparaging the nvalue a woman brings?
I am criticizing the uncritical portrayal of Taylor Swift by Democrats.
I’m still surprise that you are looking for a “critical portrayal” when people are talking about her ability to bring eyeballs to a message. What on earth are you expecting? “Taylor Swift can bring a message to 10 million followers, but single white immigrant men don’t like her.” Is that the balance you need? What criticism is appriopriate in a discussion of how many people read her tweets? Can you give an example?
And I am contrasting it with the negative portrayal of most other billionaires. Elon Musk - "it was all luck, he played no role in the success of Tesla and Space X, he should be taxed heavily, he should not get to have a spaceship". Taylor Swift "talented and deft businesswoman, wasn't it great she flew from Tokyo to Las Vegas?".
Musk does not bring new voters to any party. He reaches an existing fan base.
Oh, in how they made their money?
Swift does not have anyone else singing for her. She does not buy singers and then cause them to make more money (I mean, that I know of?). She gets up on stage, in person, and people pay money to watch her, personally, make a product for them.
Musk, on the other hand, has had his brand tarnished recently by buying Twitter in a tantrum for an unbusiness-like terrible price and he is making it worse. So his brand used to be much more favorable, even while it was made by him having other people make a product under his direction. But lately, it’s a series of own goals, so of course no one is fawning over him like they used to.
You keep using this word. You are not using it like the rest of the english-speakers use it.
Fawning is Mitch McConnel saying he supports Trump. Fawning is Elise Stefanik going to Mar-a-Lago.
How are these more "fawning" that excessive praise you Dems have for Swift?
They are “fawning” because they are not even honest with themselves, theyv are seeking to flatter. To me that is a much more accurate version of fawning. But your mileage may vary.