Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions.

They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle.

Take for instance:

“Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.”

What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!

That’s ambiguity.

Yes, dog whistles are ambiguous by definition. That is the entire point. What makes it a dog whistle is the intent of the speaker. I assure you that politicians don’t make ambiguous statements like the above because they have poor speaking skills. They do it intentionally to appeal to more groups of people. And they hire teams of well-paid writers, strategists, and psychologists to write these statements. These words are chosen very carefully. There’s no accidental ambiguity in a well funded political campaign speech.

Have you ever paid attention to the way candidate change their phrasing on the same topic throughout an election cycle as they speak to different audiences? It’s like clockwork. A candidate who is talking to a special interest group in the primaries will say something like “I support a woman’s right to universal access to abortions”, and then in the general election on CNN they’ll say something like “I support woman’s reproductive rights”. The entire point of doing this is to get the moderate pro-life vote who thinks to theirselves: “oh yeah I support women’s rights too”