Over the last couple of weeks, the Democratic House Majority Fund declared that the party should stay away from invective, like referring to the proposed Republican budget as “the MAGA Murder Budget.” Leaving aside whether using the phrase MAGA Murder Budget is good or not, how the Democratic House Majority Fund decided this tells us a lot–none of it good–about the pollsters the Democratic establishment uses.

The original proposal, by Democratic campaign strategist Anat Shenker-Osorio, was this sample text:

Americans across races, places, and parties value our freedoms–but Trump, Musk, and MAGA are running a regime of the bullies, for the billionaires. Their MAGA Murder Budget would turn our government into a weapon against our people, abducting our neighbors, killing off live-saving programs like cancer research and Medicaid, and letting billionaires rob us of everything ‘we the people’ created to care for each other. Our leaders must block this budget of theft and destruction to protect our freedoms, our families, and our futures.

Here’s what the Democratic House Majority Fund pollsters tested instead:

Democrats say you should support them because the MAGA regime’s Murder Budget would take away our freedom to care for our families and have them come home safely. We need Democratic leaders who prioritize healthcare, community safety, and family security, instead of putting essential services on the chopping block to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

The most obvious difference is that the structure of the second statement implies that Democrats talking about the Murder Budget are doing a bad thing (“Democrats say you should support them”). The second difference is the statement focuses on crime, but ignores things like cancer research or the massive increase in ICE spending. The third difference is that the second statement uses phrases like “family security” and “essential services”, which don’t mean anything (or more accurately, could mean anything, and thus to jaded voters, mean nothing).

Again, I’m not arguing that Shenker-Osorio’s formulation is perfect, but the Democrats opposing this are being dishonest–they have preconceived notions of what they want the outcome to be, and are using shitty polling to justify those outcomes (long-time New Democrat-aligned pollster and ambulatory shitstain Mark Penn did this all the time).

Unfortunately, multiple pundits, most of whom are too lazy or ideologically motivated to kick the tires, are now touting this as evidence that an aggressive approach will fail.

This is yet another reason why we can’t have nice things.

Aside: The idea that Democrats can’t microtarget different audiences would like to enter the chat…