I think it's a failing of the Democratic party to go far enough supporting the working class, and the social issues are not the problem. The Democrats have failed spectacularly at resisting the...
Exemplary
I think it's a failing of the Democratic party to go far enough supporting the working class, and the social issues are not the problem. The Democrats have failed spectacularly at resisting the Republican's efforts to paint them as the party of social issues. They should have been ignoring the attacks about trans rights and been screaming from the hilltops about Lina Khan's FTC, the CHIPS act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the investments in infrastructure and manufacturing, the IRS going after corporations cheating on their taxes, etc.
The defining characteristic of our politics is class warfare, and the Democrats need to wake the fuck up and stop letting themselves get bogged down with identity politics. Yes, trans rights and gay rights (I'm a gay man myself) and women's rights and minority rights are CRITICALLY important. But none of those things are going to happen if we can't win elections, and we can't win elections if we let the Democrats keep being milquetoast on supporting the working class and being loud about it.
Federal workers program to build houses -- build 3 million new houses, with union workers, cost capped to the ability of the person to afford it. Break up big big tech, tax the rich, tax the corporations, use that money to ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE LIVES OF WORKING PEOPLE!
It is not a surprise Trump won. People are hurting. They aren't stupid, but they are tired and they are worn down and that is BY DESIGN. The billionaires and the corporations are winning and we need to get our shit together to fight back, or we're all fucked.
I think you are wrong about voters. They are largely stupid and most vote just based on emotion and don't bother to learn anything that isn't shown to them in a commercial. But that is the world...
I think you are wrong about voters. They are largely stupid and most vote just based on emotion and don't bother to learn anything that isn't shown to them in a commercial.
But that is the world we live in. The democratic party is supposed to understand game theory and they are supposed to win elections. The republican party certainly seems to understand it and also human psychology.
I think Bernie Sanders made good points in his critique of the party. And that is to become the workers party like you say.
The shift right by Harris' campaign was a strategic mistake. She didn't get any good number of republican voters and never could. The Cheney's did not help and may have hurt. Talking about being pro gun did not help.
Problem 1: The democratic donors are center-right and would start donating to republicans if the dems move left. This could be offset by massive small donations, which is of course how parties should be funded anyway.
Problem 2: The supreme court is going to be a tool for the republican party for the next few decades. And it's quite possible that project 2025 will be successful in rigging everything so we've seen the last fair election. I guess it's possible of Trump totally tanks the economy by the midterms that dems could get control of congress again but that seems unlikely.
Voting on emotion doesn't make you stupid. It's human nature to look out for yourself and your family. To the extent that voters are unplugged from politics and are uninformed/misinformed, yes,...
Voting on emotion doesn't make you stupid. It's human nature to look out for yourself and your family. To the extent that voters are unplugged from politics and are uninformed/misinformed, yes, true, and they've been conditioned into this state by the very people we're talking about trying to defeat. If government was doing as much as it could be for people they'd be far less likely to fall into the radicalization funnels that the right has so skillfully created. We don't need every voter to exercise critical thinking on every issue. We need is leadership that can appeal to their emotions in a similar way that the right is now, and then use that attention to win elections and enact policies that truly help them.
Also, regardless of how you may personally feel about it, I would encourage you to consider how much of this mess has been exacerbated by us supposedly "smart" folk disrespecting our fellow Americans and calling them stupid etc. There is a significant portion of them that are racist and misogynistic and do not deserve our respect, but not every person who voted for Trump holds those views and we NEED those people to come around to our side eventually. We need to hear them, try to understand them, and befriend them. The chickens WILL come home to roost and people are going to be in even more pain and hurt, ALL of us are. When those people see that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them and will not be helping them, they're going to be adrift and that is when we extend a hand and say, "yes, this is all so fucked up, what can we do about it together?"
Trump and his goons are far more organized this time, but they all have a critical flaw: they're only in it for themselves and they're greedy as hell. There's going to be infighting amongst them that hamstrings a lot of their agendas and it's going to be painfully obvious how self-interested they are when things start to fall apart for the average person, and meanwhile Trump and his buds are laughing and lining their pockets. Make no mistake, we're in serious trouble. They're going to gut our country from the inside, and when take it back (we WILL) it's going to be in tatters. But we will take it back. Then the real work begins.
Problem Challenge 1: Democratic donors are wealthy and in control and are a part of the problem. When I say the defining mode of our politics is class warfare I am talking outside of party. D or R, if you're a moneyed interest you're part of the problem and we want you out. Money in politics is going to keep corrupting the whole system until we can fix it. Our vehicle to do so is easiest through the Democrats because of how ingrained the laws to enforce a two party system are, and yes that will be a real challenge. I don't know what this will look like. We either pull the Democrats forward or we abandon them. (Also, it's possible the "brand" Democrat is irrevocably tarnished anyway.)
Problem Challenge 2. The Republicans own the Supreme Court, yes, until we expand the size of the court. Sound extreme? Yes it is. So is Project 2025. So is stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship. So is preventing women from controlling their bodies. So is giving tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. Two can play at this game. We play and we play with morals and with the good of the people in mind. To your last point about election integrity, yes, a serious challenge and I don't have a playbook for you. I'm personally comforted by our elections being controlled at the state level and being very difficult to really "rig" meaningfully.
To sum all of this up: what's the alternative here? We give up? We lay down and take it? I refuse, and so should you. This is an opportunity to take our country and transform it for the better. DO NOT GIVE UP.
lt always did strike me as odd that people considered adding seats to the court extreme. The only other viable alternative is to hold guns to the Justices' heads and say 'retire or die'. Pretty...
The Republicans own the Supreme Court, yes, until we expand the size of the court. Sound extreme? Yes it is.
lt always did strike me as odd that people considered adding seats to the court extreme.
The only other viable alternative is to hold guns to the Justices' heads and say 'retire or die'. Pretty sure that option is unbelievably worse.
Adding seats to the court is somewhat an extreme move, but not necessarily a bad move. It doesn't even have to be implemented for the threat to be effective. Many of FDR's early New Deal policies...
Adding seats to the court is somewhat an extreme move, but not necessarily a bad move. It doesn't even have to be implemented for the threat to be effective. Many of FDR's early New Deal policies were struck down by the Supreme Court, and he pushed for policy to expand and pack it. The plan itself failed, having not enough support in the Democratic Party, but the threat of it being a possibility seemed to be effective, since afterward the Justice Owen Roberts began to vote with the liberal minority on further New Deal policies. There is speculation on whether that was to cement an end to the court packing plan or for other personal/political reasons Roberts had, but its an interesting outcome regardless.
This, and the idea that we eventually need some alignment and can't simply write off half the country as stupid/wrong/whatever is something I strongly agree with. Partly because it's not a winning...
I would encourage you to consider how much of this mess has been exacerbated by us supposedly "smart" folk disrespecting our fellow Americans and calling them stupid etc.
This, and the idea that we eventually need some alignment and can't simply write off half the country as stupid/wrong/whatever is something I strongly agree with.
Partly because it's not a winning strategy. But also because even if it was; then what? Ignore them and subjugate them?
If we disagree with our fellows, we need to make them understand why we disagree. There's no better way to do that than to make a point of understanding why they disagree with us. Without that, we're simply never going to find a common way forward.
Some (perhaps many) people are simply hateful, and we're obviously not going to get far with them. But I simply don't accept that those people form a majority of American's today.
The trouble I encounter is that people seem extremely resistant to explaining their point of view to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, let alone trying to suss out why someone else holds a differing opinion (hell, sometimes people actually agree but they'd never know it because they're on different sides of a different divisive issue). People truly do seem interested in having their party gain power and then wield it without regard to those who disagree, and I see this from fellows in both parties. That's what truly scares me.
We have to empathize with (or at least understand) the majority if we want the opportunity to protect the minority (or anyone for that matter). If we don't then we'll all be exploited, and there will be no trust or unity left to pick up the pieces.
This. This is a challenge for anyone. Pick a town 40-60 miles from a Walmart or a significant big box retailer. Find the local grocery store in that town, spend 3-4 hours at the store, and watch...
This.
This is a challenge for anyone. Pick a town 40-60 miles from a Walmart or a significant big box retailer. Find the local grocery store in that town, spend 3-4 hours at the store, and watch how many people pick up an item, look at the label, and put it back, shaking their heads.
Spend enough time, and you'll even see some people with a tear or two in their eye while doing that. I'm left-leaning but have been living in those rural communities for most of my life, and I see the reactions from the community at the grocery store every time I go. People will not care about policies that don't affect them personally when they can barely put food on the table or afford housing. Yet the Democratic Party keeps praising how well the economy is doing; the working class is not seeing it. The party waited too long to tackle inflation, price gouging, housing, etc. They should have been handling it in Dec 2022 when items like bread were already at a 35% increase in price over 2019/2020 levels, and everyone was already complaining about being stretched thin. Now, the last I checked, it's at a 54% increase over 2019/2020 levels. I recently stocked up on essentials because the last of my severance came through, and never in my life would I have dreamed that I would pay 5.49lb for the only hamburger meat available at the local store, and no, it was not Angus, just 80% regular ground meat. I double-checked that price between my local mom-and-pop supermarket and Costco. It was the same, so it wasn't price gouging.
I didn't pay attention to trumps messaging about this. Did he have an actual plan for reducing prices or lowering inflation? Does any republican have a plan for this? Is it just lowering taxes so...
I didn't pay attention to trumps messaging about this. Did he have an actual plan for reducing prices or lowering inflation? Does any republican have a plan for this? Is it just lowering taxes so more so that rich people have 99% of the money instead of 90%? Tariffs are going to lower prices somehow? This is why I'm frustrated with voters. They always punish the incumbent when the economy has trouble without realizing they are making it much worse.
This is where I think lack of financial education comes in. A huge chunk, maybe even the majority, of the electorate don’t understand the workings of the country’s economics. I don’t mean that as...
This is where I think lack of financial education comes in. A huge chunk, maybe even the majority, of the electorate don’t understand the workings of the country’s economics.
I don’t mean that as an insult, because it’s a failing of the education system — we’re not taught so much as to how to balance a checkbook or do our taxes, let alone anything about how inflation, the stock market, the Federal Bank, the labor market, wages, and the consumer populace interact with each other.
Regardless, the result is that the only information many have to work with is their feeling of sticker shock and the person sitting in the Oval Office. The fact that inflation is down and that wages have started to tick up at an increased rate but will take time to catch up (because there is no such thing as an overnight fix) is lost.
https://archive.is/0mPP1 An interesting tidbit That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement. I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social...
About a week after the September debate, Mr. Trump started spending heavily on a television ad that hammered Ms. Harris for her position on a seemingly obscure topic: the use of taxpayer funds to fund surgeries for transgender inmates. “Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 clip used in the ad.
It was a big bet: Mr. Trump was leading on the two most salient issues in the race — the economy and immigration — yet here he was, intentionally changing the subject.
But the ad, with its vivid tagline — “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you” — broke through in Mr. Trump’s testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides.
So they poured still more money into the ads, running them during football games, which prompted Charlamagne Tha God, the host of the Breakfast Club, a popular show among Black listeners, to express exasperation — and his on-air complaints gave the Trump team fodder for yet another commercial. The Charlamagne ad ranked as one of the Trump team’s most effective 30-second spots, according to an analysis by Future Forward, Ms. Harris’s leading super PAC. It shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.
That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement.
I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular with the us public, and it’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow when it happens.
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future...
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future democratic candidates to mention nothing about social policy on TV and save it for their website and other interviews, where the people who do care will find it and the people who don't care won't think there's some sort of "culture war" or "race replacement" or "dei" or whatever the fuck they always whine about. To me, this election highlighted how uninformed the average american voter is, and to me that means that any progressive platforms need to be dumbed down, too.
Also, the first time I had to sit through the "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you" commercial, I think I kind of knew we were fucked. I'm almost not surprised at how many points the campaign swung from that and other ads, the line admittedly goes hard even though I fucking hate it. It turns out your average voter wants slogans and buzz words instead of policy.
Yep. For lack of better word, the general population is stupid, and the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that to everyone else's peril. The message has to be simple to be effective. It's...
Yep. For lack of better word, the general population is stupid, and the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that to everyone else's peril. The message has to be simple to be effective. It's not like you can't promote Democratic Party policies and candidates in a simple manner - keep screaming about protecting their freedom, keep screaming about protecting their children, keep screaming about improving their financial situation and lives. It's objectively far more true for Democratic policies than republicans, so lean into it.
But won't the Republican campaign find it? Won't they amplify it? Nobody talked or knew anything about this clip from 2019, but Trump's people found it and evidently ran with it.
where the people who do care will find it and the people who don't care won't think there's some sort of "culture war" or "race replacement" or "dei" or whatever the fuck they always whine about.
But won't the Republican campaign find it? Won't they amplify it? Nobody talked or knew anything about this clip from 2019, but Trump's people found it and evidently ran with it.
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's...
But the ad, with its vivid tagline — “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you”
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's awestruck but with horror and not delight.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal. Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to...
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal.
Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to have it affect their vote. For sure. But I am certain that the vast majority of Americans, even those actively opposed to transgender rights, don't really care enough about it to have it be a major component of how they vote, in and of itself.
However: what all of these people are massively susceptible to is the message contained in that ad - that the democratic party cares more about 'them' - any them - than they care about you. Whether it be illegal immigrants or transgender folks, the danger isn't the actual support so much as the notion that they are coming first, before the rest of the voting public. This is just a twist on the same thing that we saw in 2016, in which it was the notion that the democrats cared more about elites than steelworkers that cost Ms Clinton the election.
The Times argues that the ads were successful in casting VP Harris as dangerously liberal. I completely disagree. They were successful in casting her as out of touch and unconcerned with the average voter.
The DNC needs to figure out how to neutralize this sort of attack ad more than they need to change their actual policy positions.
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter,...
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter, many newspapers, and whatever else I have missed. Talk radio on Sirius and some other radio stations is insanely toxic.
This is essentially a media problem and we need to figure out to combat that or our message will never even be seen or heard.
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that...
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that will cause problems.
I think this is key - you can promote it as something like freedom, which is supposed to be a vital part of being American. Every conservative person I've seen come around to at least supporting...
I think this is key - you can promote it as something like freedom, which is supposed to be a vital part of being American. Every conservative person I've seen come around to at least supporting the right to gay marriage has generally been because of that basic idea, not because they're interested in creating a more equitable world or anything along those lines.
I think that would be a shift right. I don’t think they should or would go full Republican, but I see what Labour has done in the U.K. and it’s done well for them. They’re not anti-trans by any...
I think that would be a shift right. I don’t think they should or would go full Republican, but I see what Labour has done in the U.K. and it’s done well for them. They’re not anti-trans by any means, but they did soften on the issue to meet the voters closer to where they are. I think the US is even more farther to the right, on average, than the U.K. so democrats have their work cut out for them, but labour’s redefinition can be a model.
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that...
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that believes in individual rights, we sure do police where people can piss or how they can pleasure themselves (I’m looking at you, porn bans!)
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the...
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the public psyche.
Perhaps I am ignorant, or unaware, but it just seems like no other countries discuss trans rights and bathroom rights as much as the United States does ? I am open to being educated. I am not sure...
Perhaps I am ignorant, or unaware, but it just seems like no other countries discuss trans rights and bathroom rights as much as the United States does ? I am open to being educated.
I am not sure if other countries argue as much about what gender or sex is put on your driver’s license.
Nor am I aware of other countries that willfully engage in things like full body pat downs and full body scans at airports all of which involve major violations of bodily privacy and again, a weird obsession with people’s body parts…(this one is a stretch, but I felt it was tangentially related).
I say these things with an emphasis on obsession. Are other countries “concerned” with or do other countries discuss or have opinions on these things ? Sure. But I don’t think to the same degree, both with regards to how frequent it is a topic of debate, and to how much the outcome of such discussions impacts said persons lives.
I suppose things like women’s sports and the constant accusations and checking of “maleness” that we see in the Olympics is a sign that it’s not just contained to the USA, but even that I guess feels distilled down to the UK and the USA as the loudest speakers.
I mean, in Afghanistan women have restrictions on speech, and I don’t mean in a philosophical sense, I mean they’re literally not allowed to speak with their mouth in many situations. Female...
I mean, in Afghanistan women have restrictions on speech, and I don’t mean in a philosophical sense, I mean they’re literally not allowed to speak with their mouth in many situations.
Female genital mutilation is common in many countries.
You will most likely die if you are openly LGBT in Iran.
Taiwan is the only East Asian country where gay marriage is legal.
In Egypt, they stripped searched a teenage trans tourist from America.
Also the UK has actively been arguing about and restricting trans rights and access to care. They're so loud about it. America is fucked but we're not unique in our transphobia by any means.
Also the UK has actively been arguing about and restricting trans rights and access to care. They're so loud about it. America is fucked but we're not unique in our transphobia by any means.
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
The way I was reading it wasn't that they should abandon it at all. Just that they need to completely ignore discussions about it, but still pursue pro rights policies, just more quietly. Edit:...
The way I was reading it wasn't that they should abandon it at all. Just that they need to completely ignore discussions about it, but still pursue pro rights policies, just more quietly.
Edit: apparently they already did, see @kfwyre's comment
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or...
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or run for something ourselves.
This is the way it's going in every single western country and there are almost no exceptions. Far-right parties and leader look to each other for inspiration and when they see that it really...
This is the way it's going in every single western country and there are almost no exceptions. Far-right parties and leader look to each other for inspiration and when they see that it really works in other countries, they will copy it and go with it. Happened here in Denmark only 3 or 4 years ago. It's becoming one of the easiest ways to get votes for these people. Punch down on a minority that makes up less than 0.1% of the population - the vast majority of people don't even know a person that knows a person that is transgender - and you have a recipe for success because transness is a completely foreign concept to 90% of people. We are such a small minority that we're not even enough people to launch demonstrations with anywhere near the required amount of people.
Realistically, most people just don't care. At best they say "yes trans people should have rights," but these people do not vote accordingly, and at worst they say "these [slurs] are pedophiles and do not deserve rights", and they then do vote accordingly.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the...
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the genitals of people who want nothing to do with him. What a little creep."
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat...
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat for them. They need to show that they can be real and unvarnished too.
Ooooh, even better; you have a slideshow of a bunch of people, all genders, cis and trans, kids and adults, and at the bottom all of them are labled "I don't care what this person's genitals look...
Ooooh, even better; you have a slideshow of a bunch of people, all genders, cis and trans, kids and adults, and at the bottom all of them are labled "I don't care what this person's genitals look like." Then the screen goes black and it says "Trump does. What a weird little creep." Then you get the "I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message". Damn, that would have won the election, I'm so mad I'm only thinking of it now.
That would have worked on people that are already voting D, but not the people voting R.. I don't think non-college educated white males would have been persuaded by more arguments over genitalia....
That would have worked on people that are already voting D, but not the people voting R.. I don't think non-college educated white males would have been persuaded by more arguments over genitalia. They want jobs and affordable homes.
Edit: I grew up working class and no one's top priority was "culture war" stuff. Parents, aunts, and uncles are still working class and they only talk about the economy.
Yeah bringing attention to the topic would have been a losing situation for Harris. Better to change the narrative to something that's not already associated negatively with Dems.
Yeah bringing attention to the topic would have been a losing situation for Harris. Better to change the narrative to something that's not already associated negatively with Dems.
I've always been baffled why they don't lean into this more. Conservatives pull that any time it'll benefit them, and it works, even though it's almost never true. In this case it is true, and...
I've always been baffled why they don't lean into this more. Conservatives pull that any time it'll benefit them, and it works, even though it's almost never true. In this case it is true, and it's incredibly easy to show. I can only cynically assume those in charge of the Democratic Party are either are too scared of potential legal conflicts and/or have too many donors/politicians/etc connected to that.
His base doesn't care that he's a rapist. Legitimately didn't care in 2016 about the likelihood and don't care now that he's been determined legally responsible by the court. I don't think...
His base doesn't care that he's a rapist. Legitimately didn't care in 2016 about the likelihood and don't care now that he's been determined legally responsible by the court. I don't think implications of child abuse, sex trafficking and more rape would make an impact.
Especially when the fucking pizzagate shit had zero evidence and was treated as fact.
But him getting "owned" and looking weak, disrupting this alpha male perception of the figure would have. She did this well at the debate but that should have been the entire campaign.
But him getting "owned" and looking weak, disrupting this alpha male perception of the figure would have. She did this well at the debate but that should have been the entire campaign.
Yes. Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines. How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her...
Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular
Yes.
Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines.
How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her entire society change? To declare his or her entire society is wrong and should listen even if the candidate's position is unpopular? Sometimes historic issues do come along, and it does matter that someone stood against an entire society and demanded they change.
But lately, especially in the past twenty years, everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important. Sure, to them. But to everyone? Does it really matter to everyone, including every voter?
Worse, and far more important, how many voters are going to use that issue as the reason they won't support a candidate? That's what happens with divisive issues. When something's controversial, they feel strongly. For or against. How many feel each way? We're counting votes, not morals. Votes dictate power, and power determines whose morals can be implemented.
If five percent of voters consider something their Single Most Important Issue, that's five percent. Is five percent worth upsetting twenty percent of the other voters enough that they vote against you? What about thirty? Fifty? Sixty-five? Where's the line?
I say the line's where it costs you more than gain. If five percent say "this is my red line if you want my vote" and six percent say "if you support this, don't count on my vote" ... you pick the six. Or you have a serious, extremely cautious and considered reason for not doing so.
Because like it or not, no matter what you feel about it, how many voters can you just ignore and still win? How many issues can you play "no, this is more important than your objection" over and still defeat your opponent? The reason to tell those voters "piss off you're wrong" should be extraordinary.
And if you lose, if you don't get the votes, you're on the sidelines so your principled stance means nothing. You have no opportunity to be an ally, to offer support, to do anything at all helpful. You lost, so you're powerless, and that's that.
Look at what those vaunted swing voters say is important. Listen. Not to the base, to them. If most swing voters don't care about something, you shouldn't either. Unless you don't mind losing. If those swings want something, you probably should too.
Dems and the Left need to stop teeing up softball pitches for the Right to smash so hard swing voters don't just watch admiringly, but come closer and vote for that home run.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a...
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a significant contingent that will always support them. The democratic party can't appeal more effectively to the former than the right can, and would lose the latter by trying.
But even if the democrats pledged to turn the entire budget towards building a hell and sending all queer people there, it still wouldn't help because the right is not acting in good faith. Queerness has nothing to do with the problems facing the typical US citizen, that's a narrative manufactured by the right. If it stops being effective, they'll make up a new one.
This feels a bit like OP says "it doesn't matter how right we are if we lose all power" and you reply "well but we're right!". One of the problems of the dems is that it feels like they're...
This feels a bit like OP says "it doesn't matter how right we are if we lose all power" and you reply "well but we're right!".
One of the problems of the dems is that it feels like they're entirely out of touch with the working class. And a big part of that problem is that working class people tend to care about cultural topics quite a bit, and they're usually not socially progressive. I see a lot of complaining that blue collar workers vote against their interests, but not a lot of will to change that. Obviously telling them they're wrong has not worked.
My point wasn't that it was the moral option (though it is), it was that there isn't a meaningful amount of votes to be gained by throwing queer people to the wolves. I agree with you that the...
My point wasn't that it was the moral option (though it is), it was that there isn't a meaningful amount of votes to be gained by throwing queer people to the wolves. I agree with you that the Dems are out of touch and their messaging has been atrocious though.
It's more that Republicans understood their audiences well and were able to craft narratives that made sense to the working class. Being right and making sense can be different (though ideally we...
It's more that Republicans understood their audiences well and were able to craft narratives that made sense to the working class. Being right and making sense can be different (though ideally we hope that they're the same).
I think the takeaway for Democrats is: how do we start crafting narratives, stories that make sense to the working class? I thought our storytelling this election cycle was quite lackluster, and we allowed Republicans to tell our stories for us. Our stories were too high-minded, too abstract; the Republicans' were very concrete.
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people...
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people feel the same way.
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party? If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate...
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party?
If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate chance of winning
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm...
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm reduction. If they're not even going to accomplish that, I'll skip the trouble.
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose. I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t...
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose.
I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t know what Trump would do. Now we know he will hurt people on purpose.
I saw the Supreme Court issues with Trump coming, so I voted against him, for all the good it did. That's fucked for the rest of my life, though, so the bar for actual harm reduction is higher now.
I saw the Supreme Court issues with Trump coming, so I voted against him, for all the good it did. That's fucked for the rest of my life, though, so the bar for actual harm reduction is higher now.
I'm not so sure this is true. From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b)...
It shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.
I'm not so sure this is true.
From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b) she was campaigning she didn't do as poorly.
Not to say this didn't hurt them, it probably did. But there are a lot of variables to unpack here. Personally, the rightward shift among most demographic cohorts tells me it's probably mostly related to something pretty foundational like affordability.
I don't think we know enough about where the ads were played and if it was just limited to swing states though, at least I didn't see it in this article when I skimmed that section.
I don't think we know enough about where the ads were played and if it was just limited to swing states though, at least I didn't see it in this article when I skimmed that section.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that ad. The first part doesn't hold much weight if voters don't feel like the second part is true. The main reason why that ad was so effective is because...
You're focusing on the wrong part of that ad.
“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you”
The first part doesn't hold much weight if voters don't feel like the second part is true. The main reason why that ad was so effective is because most people didn't feel like Kamala Harris was going to better their lives. And why would they? She didn't offer anything big and meaningful. She didn't distance herself from Biden, whose administration oversaw the average American's real wage earnings go down during his tenure. And now there's a clip going around showing her advocating for gender transition surgery for criminals? "Where's my fucking healthcare?"
It's far far far more important for Democrats to offer meaningful improvements in people's lives. Real stuff. Not some means-tested, focus group, 50k for small business startup bullshit. We're talking New Deal level investment in people. Housing, healthcare, jobs programs, education, infrastructure - ya know, fixing the things that seem to be getting worse all the time. Or at the very least, talking about it. Be the party of improving everyone's life.
Americans are stupid and sexist and racist and homophobic, but we shouldn't overestimate our bigotry. Ultimately, the majority of people in this country are self-interested. If you can make people think their lives are going to get better, they'll look away on other things they aren't too excited about. That should be one of the (many) takeaways from the Trump era. People disregard tons and tons of things they don't like about him because they believe in his (bullshit) promise of a better future.
If the Democrats move to the right on social issues and run the same campaign they did just now, then they might as well run Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, or any of the other "moderate" conservatives that Trumpism has eviscerated.
Please have some patience with me for what follows. I'm writing from a place of anger and frustration and hurt. I'm hoping people can give me some grace here. This isn't directed at anyone in...
Exemplary
Please have some patience with me for what follows. I'm writing from a place of anger and frustration and hurt. I'm hoping people can give me some grace here. This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I've been reading way too much online in a lot of places, so this is sort of an accumulated frustration across hundreds of different inputs.
On Wednesday, after the election was called for Trump, a trans friend messaged me and said "I don't know what to do."
My heart was broken for her. I didn't know what to say. I didn't know how I could help her. A Trump presidency, with Republicans in power across all branches of the government, is especially terrifying for trans people.
In 2024 alone she had to watch as hundreds of anti-trans bills were brought forward, nationwide, by Republicans. This article itself includes details on an anti-trans ad campaign that Trump brought forward.
And now she gets to sit online and read over and over again, in the election aftermath, about how Democrats are too focused on LGBTQ issues, with many arguing that it cost them the election.
I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing: I really, REALLY need people to apply some critical thinking here. One party in the US has been hyperfocused on LGBTQ issues, but it isn't the Democratic Party. The Harris campaign in fact explicitly downplayed LGBTQ issues.
Since accepting the nomination, however, Harris has not spoken at length about LGBTQ+ issues on the campaign trail. While she may still hold many of these same points of view, they are not part of her campaign platform this time around
I spoke in another comment about how conservative media falsehoods are so omnipresent that we don't even notice them, and this is a perfect example. We've completely bought the conservative rhetoric that an outsize LGBTQ focus is a problem for the Democrats. We've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. @R3qn65 has a good rundown here about how that ad is used to make a broader point that Democrats don't care about "you" because they're too focused on "they/them" but is that actually true? Or are we just uncritically buying what the Republicans are selling?
The Harris campaign didn't even end up publicly responding to those ads, by the way:
The Harris team debated internally how to respond. Ads the Harris team produced with a direct response to the “they/them” ads wound up faring poorly in internal tests. The ads never ran.
If we're keeping score: the Democrats who are "too focused on LGBTQ issues" didn't respond to an anti-LGBTQ media blitz from their opponent just months before the election.
(One that, allegedly, moved the needle a full 2.7% for the Republicans on its own, by the way.)
What's actually happening is that the Republicans are great at excessively hammering anti-LGBTQ sentiment as a political football (an issue which their side clearly cares about, by the way). Meanwhile, they somehow escape scrutiny entirely by making everybody else think that their exact strategy is actually a problem of the Democratic party. It's mind-boggling.
And way too many people are falling for it.
Please stop fucking falling for it.
Same goes for the narrative that Trump connected better with working people. Yes, that's true, but everybody stops there -- with a sort of unspoken implication that what he did was admirable and worth emulating.
Let's follow that up with another question: how did Trump reach working class people?
Well, with blatant fear-mongering like that anti-trans ad, as well as a firehouse of outright lies. He's always been able to mobilize people through fear and lies. It's his biggest "strength." But when we uncritically say "well, he connected with working class people more" instead of something like "he more successfully lied to working class people" or "he more successfully stoked fear in working class people" then we're again allowing conservative talking points to spread uncritically.
It's also why there's no easy answer for "how can Democrats better connect with working class people?" What's been shown to be effective recently isn't something really something the Democratic party has been willing to do, and I can't say I entirely blame them for that. I don't want the Democratic equivalent of Trump at the top of the party.
I wholeheartedly believe that Democrats have a bunch of shit that they need to figure out. This isn't a "they did nothing wrong!" defense. They did plenty wrong.
But let's blame them for what they actually did wrong, instead of Republican falsehoods that got projected onto them and uncritically believed.
https://newrepublic.com/post/187039/new-york-times-nyt-trump-eugenics-claim This is just one example but I could go on a much longer rant about how they legitimized him, gave him constant,...
This is just one example but I could go on a much longer rant about how they legitimized him, gave him constant, unwarranted attention or perhaps how they covered the age issue for him vs for Biden. It seems like the Times wants to be "fair and unbiased" but they should focus more upon reporting the truth.
I've been reading the NYT almost everyday for about 20 years, and they've been slinging constant shit at Trump for the past everyday for the past 8 years.
I think it's a failing of the Democratic party to go far enough supporting the working class, and the social issues are not the problem. The Democrats have failed spectacularly at resisting the Republican's efforts to paint them as the party of social issues. They should have been ignoring the attacks about trans rights and been screaming from the hilltops about Lina Khan's FTC, the CHIPS act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the investments in infrastructure and manufacturing, the IRS going after corporations cheating on their taxes, etc.
The defining characteristic of our politics is class warfare, and the Democrats need to wake the fuck up and stop letting themselves get bogged down with identity politics. Yes, trans rights and gay rights (I'm a gay man myself) and women's rights and minority rights are CRITICALLY important. But none of those things are going to happen if we can't win elections, and we can't win elections if we let the Democrats keep being milquetoast on supporting the working class and being loud about it.
Federal workers program to build houses -- build 3 million new houses, with union workers, cost capped to the ability of the person to afford it. Break up big big tech, tax the rich, tax the corporations, use that money to ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE LIVES OF WORKING PEOPLE!
It is not a surprise Trump won. People are hurting. They aren't stupid, but they are tired and they are worn down and that is BY DESIGN. The billionaires and the corporations are winning and we need to get our shit together to fight back, or we're all fucked.
I think you are wrong about voters. They are largely stupid and most vote just based on emotion and don't bother to learn anything that isn't shown to them in a commercial.
But that is the world we live in. The democratic party is supposed to understand game theory and they are supposed to win elections. The republican party certainly seems to understand it and also human psychology.
I think Bernie Sanders made good points in his critique of the party. And that is to become the workers party like you say.
The shift right by Harris' campaign was a strategic mistake. She didn't get any good number of republican voters and never could. The Cheney's did not help and may have hurt. Talking about being pro gun did not help.
Problem 1: The democratic donors are center-right and would start donating to republicans if the dems move left. This could be offset by massive small donations, which is of course how parties should be funded anyway.
Problem 2: The supreme court is going to be a tool for the republican party for the next few decades. And it's quite possible that project 2025 will be successful in rigging everything so we've seen the last fair election. I guess it's possible of Trump totally tanks the economy by the midterms that dems could get control of congress again but that seems unlikely.
Voting on emotion doesn't make you stupid. It's human nature to look out for yourself and your family. To the extent that voters are unplugged from politics and are uninformed/misinformed, yes, true, and they've been conditioned into this state by the very people we're talking about trying to defeat. If government was doing as much as it could be for people they'd be far less likely to fall into the radicalization funnels that the right has so skillfully created. We don't need every voter to exercise critical thinking on every issue. We need is leadership that can appeal to their emotions in a similar way that the right is now, and then use that attention to win elections and enact policies that truly help them.
Also, regardless of how you may personally feel about it, I would encourage you to consider how much of this mess has been exacerbated by us supposedly "smart" folk disrespecting our fellow Americans and calling them stupid etc. There is a significant portion of them that are racist and misogynistic and do not deserve our respect, but not every person who voted for Trump holds those views and we NEED those people to come around to our side eventually. We need to hear them, try to understand them, and befriend them. The chickens WILL come home to roost and people are going to be in even more pain and hurt, ALL of us are. When those people see that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them and will not be helping them, they're going to be adrift and that is when we extend a hand and say, "yes, this is all so fucked up, what can we do about it together?"
Trump and his goons are far more organized this time, but they all have a critical flaw: they're only in it for themselves and they're greedy as hell. There's going to be infighting amongst them that hamstrings a lot of their agendas and it's going to be painfully obvious how self-interested they are when things start to fall apart for the average person, and meanwhile Trump and his buds are laughing and lining their pockets. Make no mistake, we're in serious trouble. They're going to gut our country from the inside, and when take it back (we WILL) it's going to be in tatters. But we will take it back. Then the real work begins.
ProblemChallenge 1: Democratic donors are wealthy and in control and are a part of the problem. When I say the defining mode of our politics is class warfare I am talking outside of party. D or R, if you're a moneyed interest you're part of the problem and we want you out. Money in politics is going to keep corrupting the whole system until we can fix it. Our vehicle to do so is easiest through the Democrats because of how ingrained the laws to enforce a two party system are, and yes that will be a real challenge. I don't know what this will look like. We either pull the Democrats forward or we abandon them. (Also, it's possible the "brand" Democrat is irrevocably tarnished anyway.)ProblemChallenge 2. The Republicans own the Supreme Court, yes, until we expand the size of the court. Sound extreme? Yes it is. So is Project 2025. So is stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship. So is preventing women from controlling their bodies. So is giving tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. Two can play at this game. We play and we play with morals and with the good of the people in mind. To your last point about election integrity, yes, a serious challenge and I don't have a playbook for you. I'm personally comforted by our elections being controlled at the state level and being very difficult to really "rig" meaningfully.To sum all of this up: what's the alternative here? We give up? We lay down and take it? I refuse, and so should you. This is an opportunity to take our country and transform it for the better. DO NOT GIVE UP.
lt always did strike me as odd that people considered adding seats to the court extreme.
The only other viable alternative is to hold guns to the Justices' heads and say 'retire or die'. Pretty sure that option is unbelievably worse.
Or impeachment! But yes, what I mean to say by "extreme" is "outside of established norms."
Adding seats to the court is somewhat an extreme move, but not necessarily a bad move. It doesn't even have to be implemented for the threat to be effective. Many of FDR's early New Deal policies were struck down by the Supreme Court, and he pushed for policy to expand and pack it. The plan itself failed, having not enough support in the Democratic Party, but the threat of it being a possibility seemed to be effective, since afterward the Justice Owen Roberts began to vote with the liberal minority on further New Deal policies. There is speculation on whether that was to cement an end to the court packing plan or for other personal/political reasons Roberts had, but its an interesting outcome regardless.
This, and the idea that we eventually need some alignment and can't simply write off half the country as stupid/wrong/whatever is something I strongly agree with.
Partly because it's not a winning strategy. But also because even if it was; then what? Ignore them and subjugate them?
If we disagree with our fellows, we need to make them understand why we disagree. There's no better way to do that than to make a point of understanding why they disagree with us. Without that, we're simply never going to find a common way forward.
Some (perhaps many) people are simply hateful, and we're obviously not going to get far with them. But I simply don't accept that those people form a majority of American's today.
The trouble I encounter is that people seem extremely resistant to explaining their point of view to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, let alone trying to suss out why someone else holds a differing opinion (hell, sometimes people actually agree but they'd never know it because they're on different sides of a different divisive issue). People truly do seem interested in having their party gain power and then wield it without regard to those who disagree, and I see this from fellows in both parties. That's what truly scares me.
We have to empathize with (or at least understand) the majority if we want the opportunity to protect the minority (or anyone for that matter). If we don't then we'll all be exploited, and there will be no trust or unity left to pick up the pieces.
This.
This is a challenge for anyone. Pick a town 40-60 miles from a Walmart or a significant big box retailer. Find the local grocery store in that town, spend 3-4 hours at the store, and watch how many people pick up an item, look at the label, and put it back, shaking their heads.
Spend enough time, and you'll even see some people with a tear or two in their eye while doing that. I'm left-leaning but have been living in those rural communities for most of my life, and I see the reactions from the community at the grocery store every time I go. People will not care about policies that don't affect them personally when they can barely put food on the table or afford housing. Yet the Democratic Party keeps praising how well the economy is doing; the working class is not seeing it. The party waited too long to tackle inflation, price gouging, housing, etc. They should have been handling it in Dec 2022 when items like bread were already at a 35% increase in price over 2019/2020 levels, and everyone was already complaining about being stretched thin. Now, the last I checked, it's at a 54% increase over 2019/2020 levels. I recently stocked up on essentials because the last of my severance came through, and never in my life would I have dreamed that I would pay 5.49lb for the only hamburger meat available at the local store, and no, it was not Angus, just 80% regular ground meat. I double-checked that price between my local mom-and-pop supermarket and Costco. It was the same, so it wasn't price gouging.
I didn't pay attention to trumps messaging about this. Did he have an actual plan for reducing prices or lowering inflation? Does any republican have a plan for this? Is it just lowering taxes so more so that rich people have 99% of the money instead of 90%? Tariffs are going to lower prices somehow? This is why I'm frustrated with voters. They always punish the incumbent when the economy has trouble without realizing they are making it much worse.
This is where I think lack of financial education comes in. A huge chunk, maybe even the majority, of the electorate don’t understand the workings of the country’s economics.
I don’t mean that as an insult, because it’s a failing of the education system — we’re not taught so much as to how to balance a checkbook or do our taxes, let alone anything about how inflation, the stock market, the Federal Bank, the labor market, wages, and the consumer populace interact with each other.
Regardless, the result is that the only information many have to work with is their feeling of sticker shock and the person sitting in the Oval Office. The fact that inflation is down and that wages have started to tick up at an increased rate but will take time to catch up (because there is no such thing as an overnight fix) is lost.
https://archive.is/0mPP1
An interesting tidbit
That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement.
I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular with the us public, and it’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow when it happens.
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future democratic candidates to mention nothing about social policy on TV and save it for their website and other interviews, where the people who do care will find it and the people who don't care won't think there's some sort of "culture war" or "race replacement" or "dei" or whatever the fuck they always whine about. To me, this election highlighted how uninformed the average american voter is, and to me that means that any progressive platforms need to be dumbed down, too.
Also, the first time I had to sit through the "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you" commercial, I think I kind of knew we were fucked. I'm almost not surprised at how many points the campaign swung from that and other ads, the line admittedly goes hard even though I fucking hate it. It turns out your average voter wants slogans and buzz words instead of policy.
Yep. For lack of better word, the general population is stupid, and the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that to everyone else's peril. The message has to be simple to be effective. It's not like you can't promote Democratic Party policies and candidates in a simple manner - keep screaming about protecting their freedom, keep screaming about protecting their children, keep screaming about improving their financial situation and lives. It's objectively far more true for Democratic policies than republicans, so lean into it.
But won't the Republican campaign find it? Won't they amplify it? Nobody talked or knew anything about this clip from 2019, but Trump's people found it and evidently ran with it.
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's awestruck but with horror and not delight.
Its the same emotion I got when I first watched the death star blow up a planet.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal.
Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to have it affect their vote. For sure. But I am certain that the vast majority of Americans, even those actively opposed to transgender rights, don't really care enough about it to have it be a major component of how they vote, in and of itself.
However: what all of these people are massively susceptible to is the message contained in that ad - that the democratic party cares more about 'them' - any them - than they care about you. Whether it be illegal immigrants or transgender folks, the danger isn't the actual support so much as the notion that they are coming first, before the rest of the voting public. This is just a twist on the same thing that we saw in 2016, in which it was the notion that the democrats cared more about elites than steelworkers that cost Ms Clinton the election.
The Times argues that the ads were successful in casting VP Harris as dangerously liberal. I completely disagree. They were successful in casting her as out of touch and unconcerned with the average voter.
The DNC needs to figure out how to neutralize this sort of attack ad more than they need to change their actual policy positions.
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter, many newspapers, and whatever else I have missed. Talk radio on Sirius and some other radio stations is insanely toxic.
This is essentially a media problem and we need to figure out to combat that or our message will never even be seen or heard.
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that will cause problems.
I think this is key - you can promote it as something like freedom, which is supposed to be a vital part of being American. Every conservative person I've seen come around to at least supporting the right to gay marriage has generally been because of that basic idea, not because they're interested in creating a more equitable world or anything along those lines.
I think that would be a shift right. I don’t think they should or would go full Republican, but I see what Labour has done in the U.K. and it’s done well for them. They’re not anti-trans by any means, but they did soften on the issue to meet the voters closer to where they are. I think the US is even more farther to the right, on average, than the U.K. so democrats have their work cut out for them, but labour’s redefinition can be a model.
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that believes in individual rights, we sure do police where people can piss or how they can pleasure themselves (I’m looking at you, porn bans!)
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the public psyche.
I wouldn't say it's uniquely American. The UK is having its own issues, just to name one example.
How is it at all uniquely American?
Perhaps I am ignorant, or unaware, but it just seems like no other countries discuss trans rights and bathroom rights as much as the United States does ? I am open to being educated.
I am not sure if other countries argue as much about what gender or sex is put on your driver’s license.
Nor am I aware of other countries that willfully engage in things like full body pat downs and full body scans at airports all of which involve major violations of bodily privacy and again, a weird obsession with people’s body parts…(this one is a stretch, but I felt it was tangentially related).
I say these things with an emphasis on obsession. Are other countries “concerned” with or do other countries discuss or have opinions on these things ? Sure. But I don’t think to the same degree, both with regards to how frequent it is a topic of debate, and to how much the outcome of such discussions impacts said persons lives.
I suppose things like women’s sports and the constant accusations and checking of “maleness” that we see in the Olympics is a sign that it’s not just contained to the USA, but even that I guess feels distilled down to the UK and the USA as the loudest speakers.
I mean, in Afghanistan women have restrictions on speech, and I don’t mean in a philosophical sense, I mean they’re literally not allowed to speak with their mouth in many situations.
Female genital mutilation is common in many countries.
You will most likely die if you are openly LGBT in Iran.
Taiwan is the only East Asian country where gay marriage is legal.
In Egypt, they stripped searched a teenage trans tourist from America.
Also the UK has actively been arguing about and restricting trans rights and access to care. They're so loud about it. America is fucked but we're not unique in our transphobia by any means.
The only place I've ever had my ass grabbed was a German airport ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
The way I was reading it wasn't that they should abandon it at all. Just that they need to completely ignore discussions about it, but still pursue pro rights policies, just more quietly.
Edit: apparently they already did, see @kfwyre's comment
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or run for something ourselves.
This is the way it's going in every single western country and there are almost no exceptions. Far-right parties and leader look to each other for inspiration and when they see that it really works in other countries, they will copy it and go with it. Happened here in Denmark only 3 or 4 years ago. It's becoming one of the easiest ways to get votes for these people. Punch down on a minority that makes up less than 0.1% of the population - the vast majority of people don't even know a person that knows a person that is transgender - and you have a recipe for success because transness is a completely foreign concept to 90% of people. We are such a small minority that we're not even enough people to launch demonstrations with anywhere near the required amount of people.
Realistically, most people just don't care. At best they say "yes trans people should have rights," but these people do not vote accordingly, and at worst they say "these [slurs] are pedophiles and do not deserve rights", and they then do vote accordingly.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the genitals of people who want nothing to do with him. What a little creep."
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat for them. They need to show that they can be real and unvarnished too.
Yeah 'they' meaning the campaign went so soft, and the reach of those who went hard only went to echo chambers.
Ooooh, even better; you have a slideshow of a bunch of people, all genders, cis and trans, kids and adults, and at the bottom all of them are labled "I don't care what this person's genitals look like." Then the screen goes black and it says "Trump does. What a weird little creep." Then you get the "I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message". Damn, that would have won the election, I'm so mad I'm only thinking of it now.
That would have worked on people that are already voting D, but not the people voting R.. I don't think non-college educated white males would have been persuaded by more arguments over genitalia. They want jobs and affordable homes.
Edit: I grew up working class and no one's top priority was "culture war" stuff. Parents, aunts, and uncles are still working class and they only talk about the economy.
They would immediately complain about exposing children to the word genitals on TV
Yeah bringing attention to the topic would have been a losing situation for Harris. Better to change the narrative to something that's not already associated negatively with Dems.
I've always been baffled why they don't lean into this more. Conservatives pull that any time it'll benefit them, and it works, even though it's almost never true. In this case it is true, and it's incredibly easy to show. I can only cynically assume those in charge of the Democratic Party are either are too scared of potential legal conflicts and/or have too many donors/politicians/etc connected to that.
His base doesn't care that he's a rapist. Legitimately didn't care in 2016 about the likelihood and don't care now that he's been determined legally responsible by the court. I don't think implications of child abuse, sex trafficking and more rape would make an impact.
Especially when the fucking pizzagate shit had zero evidence and was treated as fact.
But him getting "owned" and looking weak, disrupting this alpha male perception of the figure would have. She did this well at the debate but that should have been the entire campaign.
Yes.
Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines.
How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her entire society change? To declare his or her entire society is wrong and should listen even if the candidate's position is unpopular? Sometimes historic issues do come along, and it does matter that someone stood against an entire society and demanded they change.
But lately, especially in the past twenty years, everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important. Sure, to them. But to everyone? Does it really matter to everyone, including every voter?
Worse, and far more important, how many voters are going to use that issue as the reason they won't support a candidate? That's what happens with divisive issues. When something's controversial, they feel strongly. For or against. How many feel each way? We're counting votes, not morals. Votes dictate power, and power determines whose morals can be implemented.
If five percent of voters consider something their Single Most Important Issue, that's five percent. Is five percent worth upsetting twenty percent of the other voters enough that they vote against you? What about thirty? Fifty? Sixty-five? Where's the line?
I say the line's where it costs you more than gain. If five percent say "this is my red line if you want my vote" and six percent say "if you support this, don't count on my vote" ... you pick the six. Or you have a serious, extremely cautious and considered reason for not doing so.
Because like it or not, no matter what you feel about it, how many voters can you just ignore and still win? How many issues can you play "no, this is more important than your objection" over and still defeat your opponent? The reason to tell those voters "piss off you're wrong" should be extraordinary.
And if you lose, if you don't get the votes, you're on the sidelines so your principled stance means nothing. You have no opportunity to be an ally, to offer support, to do anything at all helpful. You lost, so you're powerless, and that's that.
Look at what those vaunted swing voters say is important. Listen. Not to the base, to them. If most swing voters don't care about something, you shouldn't either. Unless you don't mind losing. If those swings want something, you probably should too.
Dems and the Left need to stop teeing up softball pitches for the Right to smash so hard swing voters don't just watch admiringly, but come closer and vote for that home run.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a significant contingent that will always support them. The democratic party can't appeal more effectively to the former than the right can, and would lose the latter by trying.
But even if the democrats pledged to turn the entire budget towards building a hell and sending all queer people there, it still wouldn't help because the right is not acting in good faith. Queerness has nothing to do with the problems facing the typical US citizen, that's a narrative manufactured by the right. If it stops being effective, they'll make up a new one.
This feels a bit like OP says "it doesn't matter how right we are if we lose all power" and you reply "well but we're right!".
One of the problems of the dems is that it feels like they're entirely out of touch with the working class. And a big part of that problem is that working class people tend to care about cultural topics quite a bit, and they're usually not socially progressive. I see a lot of complaining that blue collar workers vote against their interests, but not a lot of will to change that. Obviously telling them they're wrong has not worked.
My point wasn't that it was the moral option (though it is), it was that there isn't a meaningful amount of votes to be gained by throwing queer people to the wolves. I agree with you that the Dems are out of touch and their messaging has been atrocious though.
Less "well but we're right" and more "they're better at being wrong than we are".
It's more that Republicans understood their audiences well and were able to craft narratives that made sense to the working class. Being right and making sense can be different (though ideally we hope that they're the same).
I think the takeaway for Democrats is: how do we start crafting narratives, stories that make sense to the working class? I thought our storytelling this election cycle was quite lackluster, and we allowed Republicans to tell our stories for us. Our stories were too high-minded, too abstract; the Republicans' were very concrete.
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people feel the same way.
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party?
If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate chance of winning
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm reduction. If they're not even going to accomplish that, I'll skip the trouble.
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose.
I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t know what Trump would do. Now we know he will hurt people on purpose.
I saw the Supreme Court issues with Trump coming, so I voted against him, for all the good it did. That's fucked for the rest of my life, though, so the bar for actual harm reduction is higher now.
I'm not so sure this is true.
From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b) she was campaigning she didn't do as poorly.
Not to say this didn't hurt them, it probably did. But there are a lot of variables to unpack here. Personally, the rightward shift among most demographic cohorts tells me it's probably mostly related to something pretty foundational like affordability.
I don't think we know enough about where the ads were played and if it was just limited to swing states though, at least I didn't see it in this article when I skimmed that section.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that ad.
The first part doesn't hold much weight if voters don't feel like the second part is true. The main reason why that ad was so effective is because most people didn't feel like Kamala Harris was going to better their lives. And why would they? She didn't offer anything big and meaningful. She didn't distance herself from Biden, whose administration oversaw the average American's real wage earnings go down during his tenure. And now there's a clip going around showing her advocating for gender transition surgery for criminals? "Where's my fucking healthcare?"
It's far far far more important for Democrats to offer meaningful improvements in people's lives. Real stuff. Not some means-tested, focus group, 50k for small business startup bullshit. We're talking New Deal level investment in people. Housing, healthcare, jobs programs, education, infrastructure - ya know, fixing the things that seem to be getting worse all the time. Or at the very least, talking about it. Be the party of improving everyone's life.
Americans are stupid and sexist and racist and homophobic, but we shouldn't overestimate our bigotry. Ultimately, the majority of people in this country are self-interested. If you can make people think their lives are going to get better, they'll look away on other things they aren't too excited about. That should be one of the (many) takeaways from the Trump era. People disregard tons and tons of things they don't like about him because they believe in his (bullshit) promise of a better future.
If the Democrats move to the right on social issues and run the same campaign they did just now, then they might as well run Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, or any of the other "moderate" conservatives that Trumpism has eviscerated.
Please have some patience with me for what follows. I'm writing from a place of anger and frustration and hurt. I'm hoping people can give me some grace here. This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I've been reading way too much online in a lot of places, so this is sort of an accumulated frustration across hundreds of different inputs.
On Wednesday, after the election was called for Trump, a trans friend messaged me and said "I don't know what to do."
My heart was broken for her. I didn't know what to say. I didn't know how I could help her. A Trump presidency, with Republicans in power across all branches of the government, is especially terrifying for trans people.
In 2024 alone she had to watch as hundreds of anti-trans bills were brought forward, nationwide, by Republicans. This article itself includes details on an anti-trans ad campaign that Trump brought forward.
And now she gets to sit online and read over and over again, in the election aftermath, about how Democrats are too focused on LGBTQ issues, with many arguing that it cost them the election.
I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing: I really, REALLY need people to apply some critical thinking here. One party in the US has been hyperfocused on LGBTQ issues, but it isn't the Democratic Party. The Harris campaign in fact explicitly downplayed LGBTQ issues.
I spoke in another comment about how conservative media falsehoods are so omnipresent that we don't even notice them, and this is a perfect example. We've completely bought the conservative rhetoric that an outsize LGBTQ focus is a problem for the Democrats. We've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. @R3qn65 has a good rundown here about how that ad is used to make a broader point that Democrats don't care about "you" because they're too focused on "they/them" but is that actually true? Or are we just uncritically buying what the Republicans are selling?
The Harris campaign didn't even end up publicly responding to those ads, by the way:
If we're keeping score: the Democrats who are "too focused on LGBTQ issues" didn't respond to an anti-LGBTQ media blitz from their opponent just months before the election.
(One that, allegedly, moved the needle a full 2.7% for the Republicans on its own, by the way.)
What's actually happening is that the Republicans are great at excessively hammering anti-LGBTQ sentiment as a political football (an issue which their side clearly cares about, by the way). Meanwhile, they somehow escape scrutiny entirely by making everybody else think that their exact strategy is actually a problem of the Democratic party. It's mind-boggling.
And way too many people are falling for it.
Please stop fucking falling for it.
Same goes for the narrative that Trump connected better with working people. Yes, that's true, but everybody stops there -- with a sort of unspoken implication that what he did was admirable and worth emulating.
Let's follow that up with another question: how did Trump reach working class people?
Well, with blatant fear-mongering like that anti-trans ad, as well as a firehouse of outright lies. He's always been able to mobilize people through fear and lies. It's his biggest "strength." But when we uncritically say "well, he connected with working class people more" instead of something like "he more successfully lied to working class people" or "he more successfully stoked fear in working class people" then we're again allowing conservative talking points to spread uncritically.
It's also why there's no easy answer for "how can Democrats better connect with working class people?" What's been shown to be effective recently isn't something really something the Democratic party has been willing to do, and I can't say I entirely blame them for that. I don't want the Democratic equivalent of Trump at the top of the party.
I wholeheartedly believe that Democrats have a bunch of shit that they need to figure out. This isn't a "they did nothing wrong!" defense. They did plenty wrong.
But let's blame them for what they actually did wrong, instead of Republican falsehoods that got projected onto them and uncritically believed.
Disrespectfully, we're at least partially in this situation due to terrible media outlets like the New York Times.
Can you elaborate? What about NYT or other media outlets contributed to this situation? Not arguing, just curious what you're referring to.
https://newrepublic.com/post/187039/new-york-times-nyt-trump-eugenics-claim
This is just one example but I could go on a much longer rant about how they legitimized him, gave him constant, unwarranted attention or perhaps how they covered the age issue for him vs for Biden. It seems like the Times wants to be "fair and unbiased" but they should focus more upon reporting the truth.
I've been reading the NYT almost everyday for about 20 years, and they've been slinging constant shit at Trump for the past everyday for the past 8 years.