Some not-super-organized thoughts: The question that isn’t often answered is what moderate/centrist voter actually means. They are not 50% or halfway there on each issue or split down the middle....
Exemplary
Some not-super-organized thoughts:
The question that isn’t often answered is what moderate/centrist voter actually means. They are not 50% or halfway there on each issue or split down the middle. Instead, they have highly syncretic (often contradictory) views, are apathetic on many issues, but are firm believers on a couple of pet issues. In my experience, it’s broadly correct they are socially moderate (often with a live-and-let-live or “leave me alone” streak) and fiscally moderate to liberal (frequently with idiosyncratic tendencies, like low taxes but universal Medicare). They don’t like politicians, are skeptical of “the system,” can be persuaded or dissuaded by a highly charismatic candidate, may not vote in every election, and like authenticity; they can sniff out a lab-grown candidate (even if they can’t pick one with genuine beliefs). These factors all make it hard to attract them, but they form a decent portion of the electorate.
Overlapping with (1), white working-class men are a tantalizing electoral demographic for a couple of reasons; (a) they previously formed a major backbone of the Democratic Party, (b) they represent 7-10% of the population, and (c) they are spread out more uniformly than other demos, offering the possibility of winning swing and lean-R states. White working-class voters have a white working-class culture. They aren’t reading Voltaire or Kendi in their spare time.
Polling and messaging are two ends of the same coin. I agree that you can message to swing an issue (cf going from overturning the NC bathroom ban in 2017 to trans issue today for a GOP angle), and the poll chasing isn’t going to magically get you voters back. But issues can be stickier, and more people now are aware of trans issues today versus eight years ago. I think we can partially message our way out on a lot (including on trans issues), but it may only work on certain topics, and when the tone of said messaging is tweaked for “average” middle class sensibilities.
Building off of (3), issue moderation is one that needs be worked carefully. I’ve said before that I don’t think you need to compromise much on trans issues (with the right messaging, I think you could get a median voter to agree to bathroom access and youth transitioning with parental consent. I agree it sucks for kids with non-supportive family, but better than the states with a flat out ban. I think sports might be a bit harder, but in some swing states you could get to a league by league basis). On abortion, safe, legal and rare is a good message that I think still has value, especially if you are running pro-life candidates in the South (and given the size of the old Dems for Life caucus, there’s at least a few seats there at the federal level). On guns, let’s just say I vote for Dems in spite of their positions on guns. This one would need a longer payoff (gun owners really don’t trust Dems on the issue at all), but current gun control proposals seem like old ones with new stuff tackled on, not understanding where the gun community has moved in the last 30 years (many hunters and target shooters have AR-15s now. It isn’t just tacticool weirdos) and not taking the chance to truly modernize things (I also think guns are a gateway issue to the GOP, but I can elaborate on that separately).
Related to (4), you’ll need different candidates for different states. @georgeboff made a good point about Maine and Maine political culture. The increased nationalization of politics makes this harder. If the six-figure consultants can’t figure out a way around that (in terms of emphasizing candidate independence from the party), then fire them. But ultimately, if you want control of the Senate, the House, governorships, and state legislatures, you need to run candidates in every state, at every level, for every position.
Continued from (5), the dearth of political talent and the seniority system Democrats employ has led to stagnation and to a hole that’s very deep. The GOP winner-take-all approach, for all its flaws, allows for younger talent to rise to the top.
I think out of all the issues that the Democrats have, trans issues have the lowest popularity to positive impact ratio. What I mean by that is that these issues affect 1% of the population. Yes,...
I think out of all the issues that the Democrats have, trans issues have the lowest popularity to positive impact ratio. What I mean by that is that these issues affect 1% of the population. Yes, they affect them very, very strongly, but if you look at any other big platform position like healthcare, immigration, taxation, immigration, abortion access, climate change and so on, trans issues affect a far, far smaller proportion of the population.
It's also one of the most contentious issues and easiest to attack, which makes it a massive weakness.
Even though in an ideal world, trans people are accepted and treated exactly like cis people, the general population is just not there yet, and lashing the entire democratic strategy to that horse just doesn't make sense from a policy perspective. The Democrats could have the most ingenious, egalitarian, fair, and well thought out platform the world has ever seen, and it just doesn't matter if they can't win. Right now, conservatives have an easy target for any democratic candidate "they can't even tell what a woman is!" or "they want to turn your son into a girl!".
It's a catchy soundbite, and it works. I'm not suggesting that Democrats abandon trans rights, but they absolutely should deemphasize it and focus on issues that most people feel the direct effects of. That doesn't mean they still can't positively impact them. We've seen reforms on the death penalty, parole, and mixed used zoning from democrats despite not really emphasizing those things, but you don't have to campaign on them. You can just quietly enact them after you're elected. It should be blatantly clear by now that Identity politics in general is just not a winning strategy for them, so focus should be on the areas they're both strong on, and which affect everyone. For instance, democratic policies are far more fiscally responsible than conservative ones, but how often do you hear democratic candidates run in fiscal responsibility?
The general population was there until the propaganda hate machine targeted trans people in general and there was no counter-messaging. I'd love to see where you think the democrats 'lashed their...
Exemplary
the general population is just not there yet
The general population was there until the propaganda hate machine targeted trans people in general and there was no counter-messaging.
lashing the entire democratic strategy to that horse just doesn't make sense
I'd love to see where you think the democrats 'lashed their entire strategy to that horse'. With the exception of a few progressive dems, they've been throwing trans people under the bus since the beginning. This whole year has them compromising on trans strategy (the consultants straight up said to fold on these issues). They are not, and have essentially never made this a major part of their strategy. What little rights trans people have won in the past two decades have been primarily behind the scenes and exceedingly small victories.
It's a catchy soundbite, and it works.
So are the dozen other soundbites that they have. Why are you so focused on this one and not any of the other dozen issues? Have you ever thought a bit more deeply about what these soundbites represent and how they are working? Because they are absolutely distilling every issue down to a catchy soundbite, and that's precisely why the right is winning. They make everything an individual issue which is what their voters care for and they simplify it down to an emotional appeal. Showing how it affects the individual, simplifying something complex, and appealing to the voters emotions are the three key components that the democrats need to focus on.
As a general thought, I'm sick and tired of this false narrative being pushed as a reason to abandon trans people. I know you're desperate for a win, but the answer is not abject cruelty to a group in the hopes that kicking them off the ladder will somehow win over voters. Guess what happens when one boogeyman is gone? They will simply shift to another one, like immigration (remember how that used to be the issue people talked about as losing the centrist voters to the right?). Stop acting like your warped sense of reality is somehow either the truth or a path forward. Not only is this both incorrect and insane, but it's exactly the kind of infighting that the people in power want. If you want to be helpful focus on the positive messages you think we're doing a bad job on. You spend all of one sentence on fiscal responsibility and the latter half of a single paragraph talking about literally anything but trans people. Be better
The general population was never there. They just never thought about it before, because there was never a concerted, massive political effort aimed at attacking trans rights. The Republican party...
The general population was there until the propaganda hate machine targeted trans people in general and there was no counter-messaging.
The general population was never there. They just never thought about it before, because there was never a concerted, massive political effort aimed at attacking trans rights. The Republican party made it an issue, so it's an issue now. It doesn't matter why it's an issue, it still remains one.
I'd love to see where you think the democrats 'lashed their entire strategy to that horse'
I never said they did. I said that doing so would be a mistake.
And yeah, my post was about the Democratic party's strategy with regards to trans rights because... That's what my post was about. If my post was about other things I'd be talking about other things. I'm not sure what you mean by cataloging what proportion of the post was talking about things other than what the post was about.
This is literally the only time I've posted about the Democratic party's strategy with trans issues. I promise you, this isn't what I spend most of my time on.
Warning rant with you as a springboard @Gaywallet: I say once again let just one of the people advocating for trans people losing rights as a sound political strategy - because without the defense...
Warning rant with you as a springboard @Gaywallet:
I say once again let just one of the people advocating for trans people losing rights as a sound political strategy - because without the defense of them, they will be lost - tell me they're willing to lose the same rights.
If you're (general) signing up to be allowed to be legally denied fair housing protections, to be fired, harassed and arrested for your failure to gender present "appropriately" by someone else's standard, to advocate for the literal banning of your medical care, to be banned from public restrooms, to not be allowed to participate in even sports culture, because you're simultaneously cheating and superior and mentally ill and inferior... Cool at least then you're consistent.
But it's always people advocating for the loss of other people's rights. Already people are saying we shouldn't provide emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants. That US citizens should be de-naturalized. That the constitution doesn't apply to "them".
Put up or shut up. Be willing to sign up for the dehumanizing rights-denying experience or find a new talking point.
As I see it, the problem is that this is exactly what they've been trying without success. Kamala Harris never opened her mouth in support of nonbinary people that I ever heard of, but I saw...
I'm not suggesting that Democrats abandon trans rights, but they absolutely should deemphasize it and focus on issues that most people feel the direct effects of.
As I see it, the problem is that this is exactly what they've been trying without success. Kamala Harris never opened her mouth in support of nonbinary people that I ever heard of, but I saw "Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you" ads every single day.
In order to back away further than they already have, the Democratic party absolutely does need to vocally reject 'the trans agenda.' Nothing less will even reach the ears of swing voters, because the left simply does not control the conversation.
these issues affect 1% of the population.
You are making a grave error here. These issues affect FAR more than 1%. They affect every single person with a trans friend, or a nonbinary child, or an intersex coworker. People aren't isolated individuals, they are part of a community. And I will tell you right now, if you walk into a community and start killing the 1% most vulnerable members of it, you won't generate virtuous cycles of mutual support. It gravely wounds the entire community when we decide to just give up on people we care about.
This isn't even getting into people whose chromosomes "match" the sex recorded on their birth certificate but their shoulders' width or their chin size or the size of their hands or just their attitude "doesn't match" and so they're attacked by the worst people for not being a "real" boy or girl. This isn't hypothetical; cis people have been killed by transphobes.
I do not believe there is any way whatsoever that the left can change the conversation that the right wing propaganda machine is blasting. The thing is, if we give up the trans people-- go so far as to exterminate and erase every last one-- it won't shut the propaganda machine up or calm it down. They will simply switch targets and it will continue to be effective.
They don't need to back away from trans people, they need to spend more time reaffirming their positions, which aren't radical at all. Kamala didn't support trans girls in women's sports. She...
They don't need to back away from trans people, they need to spend more time reaffirming their positions, which aren't radical at all. Kamala didn't support trans girls in women's sports. She didn't support transitioning without parental consent, but she rarely actually said those things. This, she let the right control the narrative and say whatever they wanted about her.
Saying screw it, we should double down and allow trans people to affirm their own gender in all situations no matter what, and our institutions will recognize that sounds good in theory, but putting that much emphasis on something that is still that unpopular will absolutely lose you an election, and how can you possibly help trans people if you don't get elected?
We're framing this as a blue collar white man problem, but those policies are unpopular with most demographics, so by supporting them you're not just saying "screw blue collar white men, we don't need them anyway, we'll rely on other demographics" doesn't really work. They're unpopular with most demographics.
That's not a comment on the morality of those politics. It's just the reality of where the country is at right now. The Democrats can't afford to adopt policies that only align with their personal morality. We live in a democracy and they need to pick platforms that people actually support.
Yep, definitely agreed. This is a really hard turn that I don't understand. As you yourself just said, those aren't the positions any major Democrat holds. I do not see how this is relevant. Tracy...
This, she let the right control the narrative and say whatever they wanted about her.
Yep, definitely agreed.
Saying screw it, we should double down and allow trans people to affirm their own gender in all situations no matter what, and our institutions will recognize that
This is a really hard turn that I don't understand. As you yourself just said, those aren't the positions any major Democrat holds.
They're unpopular with most demographics.
I do not see how this is relevant. Tracy is the least popular member of the friend group, therefore...?
It's just the reality of where the country is at right now.
I disagree with this characterization as though it were some random weather. There is a system of propaganda built to ensure that this is the reality of where the country is at, right now, tomorrow, and forever.
The Democrats can't afford to adopt policies that only align with their personal morality.
Again, it's like you're responding to someone who I can't see or hear. They aren't doing this and are in no danger of doing this.
We live in a democracy and they need to pick platforms that people actually support.
As we have both been saying they do virtually nothing except pick platforms nearly everyone supports. But no one who isn't terminally plugged in ever hears about it, because billionaires control the media.
In order to play the game according to the rules laid down by Murdoch, Bezos, the Kochs, Trump, Musk, etc, Democrats only need to do one very simple thing: switch sides and swear fealty.
She would have been pilloried by a vocal segment of the base if she said any of that out loud.
Kamala didn't support trans girls in women's sports. She didn't support transitioning without parental consent, but she rarely actually said those things.
She would have been pilloried by a vocal segment of the base if she said any of that out loud.
The problem is she only ever went halfway there. They’d ask something like “will you support gender transition being covered under Medicaid” and she’d say “I would follow the law.” That’s a dodge....
As I see it, the problem is that this is exactly what they've been trying without success. Kamala Harris never opened her mouth in support of nonbinary people that I ever heard of, but I saw "Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you" ads every single day.
The problem is she only ever went halfway there. They’d ask something like “will you support gender transition being covered under Medicaid” and she’d say “I would follow the law.” That’s a dodge. It should have been more like “Everyone is entitled to medical care, you don’t want me deciding who deserves to have their needs met or not. It’s not the government’s business to be getting between trans people and their doctors, you’re weird for caring about this why are you so obsessed?”
The general argument is the same. They have healthcare coverage, it’s a medical procedure they’ve determined they need, it should be covered as all such cases should. But it creates the moral contrast. You’re either with us or you’re with these weird losers who want to snoop around in your medical records. If you don’t draw the contrast people can’t tell what you’re stand. They’re not going to parse your statement to decipher it.
I didn't disagree that she shouldn't have dodged. Dodging implies that there's a clever enough enough answer that one could thread the needle and make Fox News kick the ground dejectedly and slink...
I didn't disagree that she shouldn't have dodged. Dodging implies that there's a clever enough enough answer that one could thread the needle and make Fox News kick the ground dejectedly and slink away, defeated.
A forthright answer like the one you gave on the other hand comes across as real and shows compassion for the people who needed her leadership the most.
I'm suddenly reminded of the parable of the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to find the 1 lost sheep. We simply shouldn't leave our people behind in the dark.
To your point, I think the biggest issue at play is that Kamala Harris just isn't very good at popular politics. She seems to be good at the politics part of politics - raising money, building...
To your point, I think the biggest issue at play is that Kamala Harris just isn't very good at popular politics. She seems to be good at the politics part of politics - raising money, building support among the right power brokers, and so on - but that's not enough to win you the presidency. It seems to be enough to win you the vice presidency, because you don't get elected, you get picked. But it's not enough to win the votes of a majority of Americans.
The seminal example demonstrating her instinct for power politics over popular politics, is, I think, the "I can't think of a thing [I would do differently than Biden]" comment. At the time President Biden was deeply unpopular, but it shows her instinct for peacekeeping and loyalty to existing powers. Obviously those aren't bad qualities but they really hurt her.
In my alternative history head cannon, Biden would have done better to make her attorney general, a job that matches her predominate experience. Then a better politician could have been chosen as VP.
In my alternative history head cannon, Biden would have done better to make her attorney general, a job that matches her predominate experience. Then a better politician could have been chosen as VP.
Absent that, he should have picked Doug Jones as AG over Garland, since he had a track record of aggressively and successfully prosecuting white supremacist terrorism and no illusions about what...
Absent that, he should have picked Doug Jones as AG over Garland, since he had a track record of aggressively and successfully prosecuting white supremacist terrorism and no illusions about what the modern Republican Party would go to bat for.
I agree that the backlash towards trans issues is misleading, but it's not impossible to defeat. The solution is general honesty. I'm sure most voters would pick a pro-trans candidate over an...
I agree that the backlash towards trans issues is misleading, but it's not impossible to defeat. The solution is general honesty.
I'm sure most voters would pick a pro-trans candidate over an anti-trans candidate, if the pro-trans candidate was obviously better in other ways. They wouldn't believe Republican distortion of Democrat trans views, if Democrats seemed honest.
The real reason that Trump won is that most people's lives weren't better during Biden's presidency than Trump's, and most Democrat politicians (including Biden and Harris) were very dishonest. Hence why centrist and right-leaning voters didn't favor Democrats over Republicans, and nothing Democrats said shifted their perception more than negligibly.
Harris not speaking about non-binary people did, and Democrats openly rejecting trans issues would, actually damage the party's appearance further. Voters know that Democrats support trans people, the question is whether they have moderate "live and let live" support or Republican-propaganda "enable sexual assault" support. Unfortunately (as you note), even outright stating the former and giving the most centrist trans-friendly policies (e.g. no women in competitive sports) while explicitly disavowing anything further, won't convince many people. Because (as stated), Democrats have spun and outright lied so much, anyone not far-left doesn't believe anything they say anymore; especially when it contrasts their prior statements and the perceived effects of their prior policies.
That makes the situation seem pretty grim, but I don't believe most centrist and even moderate right voters like or believe Republican politicians either. The economy is still getting worse for the average person, and barring some miracle where Republicans fix that, voters will get sick of them. Eventually they'll start listening to Democrats again, simply because they're unhappy with the status quo and Democrats are an alternative (unless a third party rises).
Granted I'm bad at persuasion, so maybe it's not even worth saying. But my lesson to Democrats (am I a Democrat?) is: if you cannot improve people's lives, your policies have unintended consequences, and you have unpopular goals, at least be honest. Write and promote a detailed plan for when you're elected ("Project 2027" and "Project 2029"), then follow it. If the plan differs from what voters want, explain why if you think voters will understand, otherwise just admit it; the popular opinion for some policies is wrong and ignorant, voters don't know how the world works at a large scale, I say this as a voter myself. If part of the plan is infeasible or impossible (e.g. struck down by courts), apologize, then ask voters for next steps, and either do them or (again, being honest) admit you won't. Speaking of, the plan should be feasible and contain actions ("I'll create a fund for small businesses"), not outcomes ("I'll restore the middle class"); and although most voters won't care, the specific details of the actions should be somewhere, at least for you to prove to yourself that the plan really is feasible.
Voters are so disillusioned by lying politicians, I suspect even a candidate who's authentic but has terrible policies would be elected over the current ones (I suspect that helped Trump get elected). But even if voters don't intrinsically prefer honesty, it's important because it makes people in the other party actually listen to you. If the Democrats build credibility, they'll have no issues clarifying their policies and fighting Republican distortion, on trans rights and everything else. And I imagine Democrats would build credibility by being honest even when it embarrasses them, and taking concrete stances on policies that will alienate both some of their party and "centrists" in the other party, because taking any concrete stance on some policies will alienate many people. This includes being honest about trans rights, but they're only a small part; if the Democrats rebuilt credibility on trans rights it will mainly be from being honest about other policies.
It’s not an organically contentious issue. The contentions are drummed up by agitprop for the specific reasons you cite. Trans people are rare, most people will not (knowingly) interact with one...
It’s not an organically contentious issue. The contentions are drummed up by agitprop for the specific reasons you cite. Trans people are rare, most people will not (knowingly) interact with one in person with any regularity, but their issues are lurid and they challenge conventional understandings of how things work. There is no actual reason people NEED to have opinions on it, but if the media is constantly pushing them to have opinions on it (almost definitionally opinions that will be formed in ignorance) they’re going to end up having perspectives that approach it as a theoretical thing without any real input.
It’s important to recognize that they’re not after trans people for any reason other than them being easy targets. If the trans people were no longer the easiest targets they’d just find the next easiest targets on the list. You can’t just let them salami-slice your coalition, you need to speak out against singling people out on account of their identity period. You can’t try to run from it by pivoting the discussion to something else. You have to call out that the other guy is being a dick. You need to tell him to mind his own business, that being a bully is pathetic behavior, that leering under people’s skirts is disgusting. You have to take the offensive.
One of the reasons the Gay Marriage folks won the argument was because they successfully created a simple contrast. You’re either with us, or you’re with the Westboro Baptist Church people. You have to make the bigots more repulsive than their victims. It’s not as if the Klan stopped being popular because they were hateful bigots, there remained plenty of hateful bigots throughout the country. They stopped being popular because the popular consensus was that they were ignorant, gap-toothed, hillbilly, cousin-fucking, alcoholic, terrorists. Being the bad guy needs to prompt more of a visceral “disgust” response than being one of the good guys.
(I apologize in advance that this will sound really offensive. I'm only talking logistically in this comment and do support trans rights) Trans issues are a talking point purely driven the GOP....
its a catchy soundbite, and it works. I'm not suggesting that Democrats abandon trans rights, but they absolutely should deemphasize it and focus on issues that most people feel the direct effects of.
(I apologize in advance that this will sound really offensive. I'm only talking logistically in this comment and do support trans rights)
Trans issues are a talking point purely driven the GOP. And of course it is never brought up in good faith (Trump was complaining about trans athletes... In the middle of a meeting with Canada). I don't think I've ever seen any democratic policy maker actively bring it up themselves.
But in this age of social media, it is an effective soundbite that will reverberate among the internet, around by LGBT and bigots alike. It doesn't even matter if a response deflects to to say "I'll leave those issues to the patient's doctors" or "I'm here to make sure everyone can eat, get a job, and buy a house.". The soundbite doesn't need to that part.
That's really a distillation of how the Charlie Kirk strategy works. Pick a sensitive issue, take a hard stace, edit, and let the fire spread and viewership grow. There's really no good way to engage with such rhetoric.
Trust me, I completely agree with you. Trans people existed 20 years ago and people didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about them besides an offensive joke in a movie here and there....
Trust me, I completely agree with you. Trans people existed 20 years ago and people didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about them besides an offensive joke in a movie here and there. They've used the bathrooms that match their gender identify for... probably forever and it was never controversial. I very much realize that it was never an issue for most people until the Republican party stumbled on it as a winning strategy, and it's something the Democratic party never particularly advocated for.
However, in the world of realpolitik, it now is an issue. It's not something that Democrats can afford to just ignore and pretend that it's 20 years ago. The perception from the general voting public that swung to Trump is that Democrats strongly want kids to be able to identify as whatever they like, get surgeries behind their parents backs with no oversight, that we LOVE drag queen story hours, and so on.
It doesn't matter that they're not actually advocating for any of that, it matters that that's the perception, and all of those things are deeply unpopular, so if they continue to have that weakness, they'll continue to lose elections. People are voting solely on that basis in some cases, usually entirely against their own best interests.
I suppose this begs ththe question of: how would you address this? I don't think the strategy here is to abandon and attack the trans community. The only thing I see working is to make sure the...
However, in the world of realpolitik, it now is an issue. It's not something that Democrats can afford to just ignore and pretend that it's 20 years ago. The perception from the general voting public that swung to Trump
I suppose this begs ththe question of: how would you address this? I don't think the strategy here is to abandon and attack the trans community.
The only thing I see working is to make sure the real points are louder than the spin. If you see someone who you think will make sure you can get a job and afford a house, you'll start to ignore the opposition who is instead going "but trans athletes!". But I'm open to ideas.
(this one got long and was a completely distinct point, so I separated it to another reply) If it's not about taxes (i.e. tax breaks) or otherwise literally giving people momey, people tend to...
For instance, democratic policies are far more fiscally responsible than conservative ones, but how often do you hear democratic candidates run in fiscal responsibility?
(this one got long and was a completely distinct point, so I separated it to another reply)
If it's not about taxes (i.e. tax breaks) or otherwise literally giving people momey, people tend to snooze out in fiscal policy. That is a very important point that policy constantly impacts. But its very clear that the same social media circles who will talk social issues are completely braindead on proper fiscal policy.
The best soundbite Democrats have is "tax the rich" but that's still not popular to say among those are are funded by the rich, of not rich themselves already. Hence why candodars like Mamdami are getting so much pushback from being a progressive outsider, even from rhe Democrats until recently.
So you can't talk money to laymen. You talk housing and jobs.
Housing is the most controversial issue to talk about right now, because you're splitting amongst generations. Old people want to keep value on their houses. Young people want affordable housing. A decade ago, old people outnumbered the young voters, so who to appeal to was obvious (even before looking at the age of policy makers themselves) . Its less obvious now, but the outdated systems on how policy makers get their feedback (at 10AM on Tuesdays at Town Halls, or via phone calls) favor older retired folk, or those not working a 9-5. So there the issues lie.
Jobs are on the other spectrum, where it's an aspect policy has the least impact on. You can't really make people get hired, you either give employees more protections (which businesses will fight tooth and nail against) or you give tax credits or subsidies to businesses and try to encourage them to hire more. But in a cooling market like this it's hard to make a horse drink without inflating the hell out of the dollar in the process.
I also think this is also the part where it feels like all politicians are the most out of touch as well. Because the numbers on the paper look great. Low unemployment, slightly less spending but the GOP is up. And of course, they have jobs themselves, so what's wrong? Breaking down the realities (or putting in a candidate whose undergone the modern circus of the last few years) will probably be the biggest challenge.
For those who need it, here's a paywall bypass. I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the...
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election. I found this quote towards the end the most important
The party’s leaders think they have a problem with Trump voters. Some polling says white men without college degrees don’t like them, don’t trust them and won’t vote for them, so they think the only logical way forward is to pander. Their polling addiction ignores more complex political instruments telling them that the working class isn’t just white men and that centrism isn’t enough to bring white voters back into the fold.
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require...
Exemplary
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require said people to want healing generally) is bizarre to me given the data we have.
But also, the NYT was the one pushing an article that framed white non-college educated men in direct opposition to women with a college degree, showing their "gain" against the "loss" of those specific white men while not including any other men or how women without a degree have fared.
And I think that is intentionally not painting a full picture to sell that narrative of winners and losers. I guess I'm saying that if the NYT would like to stop selling the narrative, or at the very least paint a more honest, complete, picture, the centrist Dems that listen to them might be swayed. (And if the complete picture shows something other than what I think it would, I do still welcome/demand it.)
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate. A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically...
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election.
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate.
A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically fuck up at every opportunity". As much as we can all argue about perfect strategies there's so much screaming in the face of what the dems have, and continue, to do. 2024's possible improvements start with "pick an actual fucking candidate before your ancient one has to drop out of the race"
Biden was basically a "oh fuck anyone but Bernie" candidate. One that a previous, popular president would obviously endorse. And yes, that was because Dems really didn't have any other popular...
Biden was basically a "oh fuck anyone but Bernie" candidate. One that a previous, popular president would obviously endorse. And yes, that was because Dems really didn't have any other popular name out there to push against Sanders that was still under the Establishment.
Them dropping Hilary and doing nothing the next 4 years really attests to that. Hell, to this day: the fact that a California Govenor's name (whose popularity before this year was falling moee and more) is talks around 2028 shows how this Establishment still doesn't get it (after having another 4 years, and then scuttling to jam Harris in last minute).
Sanders spent his life tilling his field and then by his twilight years is spending some decade+ training a potential successor. Meanwhile the establishment spends years digging holes and then only realizes on election year that they need to find a tree somewhere and jam it in the hole.
I'll keep saying it in that the old strategies of "pander to modeates" is not working anymore. Let's instead think about why 8m voters decided to stay home compared go 2020. Some of it is rigged, yes (shocker that when forced to do mail in ballots that suddenly turnout ot higher, and how does the GOP treat that?). But it clearly also didn't mean that all 8m switched to Trump.
That was the great thing Obama did in his election run (even if his real impact on office fell short of it): he energized voters and felt like a true force of change. But afterwards, the dems just coasted on that and let the momentum peter out. We need that again, and it's a shame the potential candidates who can do that are suppressed rather than fostered
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even...
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even accurately!) is not the rhetorical killshot it should be. But more to the point, we have over a dozen years of his pre-politics internet comments to trawl through for evidence of his beliefs. And while I see a lot of edgy ex-military banter and disappointing but fairly normie levels of sexism/racism/homophobia, I do not see evidence of hateful bigotry or extremist white nationalism. If anything, he very clearly denounces Nazis, genocide, Trumpism, etc., while embracing more left-wing/anti-fascist philosophy. The idea of him being a dumb drunk twentysomething jarhead who got the tattoo because it looked cool and then either never realized the symbolism or (more likely) did but felt un-implicated because that's not why he got it feels far more likely given that history.
Now, that doesn't mean he has great judgment, is electable against Collins, or would make a good senator versus his primary opponents. But he's obviously not a Nazi, and insisting he is (and that anyone who doesn't automatically reject him is a Nazi, too) is self-defeatingly stupid when he has a double-digit lead among Maine Democrats right now.
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into. The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending...
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into.
The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending on the issue.) already has people desensitized to the entire discussion, but then when you have a candidate who has a literal nazi symbol on their body, and you've got huge portions of your base AND elected representation talking about dog whistles and actual nazi's in the leadership, what else can you do?
It's very possible this is exactly as you described and a "uhh didn't know" situation, but bluntly if this guy wasn't running for a major office and we just saw his face on twitter and the tattoo people would be calling for his head and saying "oh sure now he says he doesn't know". The only reason he's even being given the benefit of the doubt by a large % of these people is because he happens to be on their team.
I've seen people told they deserve to be put against the wall for liking Warhammer 40k since it's clearly fascist, but this guy gets a "well he didn't know" from the same crowd? And I want to be clear it's not just the terminally online, but the "tangentially involved" as well. I know many well meaning people who will spout off whatever the current talking point is (much as most people do), and it's hard to take them remotely seriously when they show just how little their actual position matters vs what they're told matters, as what happens when these stories come up.
Bluntly its insane to me that "literal nazi tattoo" isn't enough to disqualify and instead is just a discussion. As much as everyone likes to point out that the last 100 years of US politics and society was far from perfect, that's been a pretty big "your political career is fucking over" for most of that time, and I think it should be.
To be clear that's as someone who absolutely believes people can change, things can get better, and we need to understand and forgive more. This however is absolutely well within the territory of not even close to fucking worth risking it, and more importantly, it's important to send the message that yes this is not acceptable under any circumstances.
I think a lot of the culture has taken the idea of dog whistles the wrong way. The definition is something like "something that can indicate membership or support of a bigoted group or idea, but...
I think a lot of the culture has taken the idea of dog whistles the wrong way.
The definition is something like "something that can indicate membership or support of a bigoted group or idea, but can also be innocuous". The whole reason why they're so powerful is because of how they could really go either way.
The treatment of it that I have a problem with is the response of "so thus we should treat all instances of it as prohibited". The whole reason they're dog whistles in the first place is because they can potentially be innocent.
I don't think you can make an argument that a swastika is a dogwhistle. But a totenkampf? It's one variation of probably 10,000 different skulls the military uses in symbols all over the place, and the wider culture uses constantly. If I showed 100 people a totenkampf, I'd be surprised if 20 of them identified it as a Nazi symbol. To me, despite being a Nazi symbol, it falls into the dogwhistle category.
Dogwhistles can never really be firmly judged, which is why they're so powerful. They're a potential indicator that someone has extremist or bigoted beliefs, but only an indicator. You'd have to look into that person's behavior in the past to determine if it aligns with that dogwhistle or not.
I think however, this is a nuanced take that doesn't translate well to campaigns. Things are either good or bad. Electorates don't believe in "it depends", or "it's unclear".
For what it’s worth I agree. The country as a whole has just dived into conspiracies in my eyes and that’s often what dog whistles boil down to. It starts with some very obvious “ok we all know...
For what it’s worth I agree. The country as a whole has just dived into conspiracies in my eyes and that’s often what dog whistles boil down to.
It starts with some very obvious “ok we all know what they mean” instance but then explodes to “the shape of the debate stage is signaling to nazis! “ level issues.
That said a straight up Nazi symbol isn’t a “welll maybe”. I think most reasonable people can understand how a military guy could wind up with that tattoo without understanding what it meant, but I can also totally understand saying “well then you shouldn’t have run”. Plenty of good candidates just can’t get elected due to the perception of the things they did. I’m fine with “literal Nazi tattoo” still being one
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up...
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up and has disavowed those beliefs.
Best case, he wins the democratic nomination, and then gets elected to the senate and we gain another progressive ally. If his opponent in the primary wins(I can't remember her name), it will almost certainly hand the election to Collins as she's just another octagenarian mealy mouthed liberal who thinks she can play boths sides. Worst case, Platner gets elected and he turns into Fetterman. What did we lose? Collins' seat should be an easy flip for anyone who actually wants to help the working class.
Ehhh. He has definitely not been honest or forthright about it. He’s been very dodgy about whether he ever knew, when he knew, and why he kept it after finding out. He’s actually been caught in...
Ehhh. He has definitely not been honest or forthright about it. He’s been very dodgy about whether he ever knew, when he knew, and why he kept it after finding out. He’s actually been caught in lies about that based on various testimonies, and he didn’t even get it covered up until AFTER it became a political liability at which point you can’t plausibly argue there was any sincere motivation driving it besides wanting to win.
And there is no “almost certainly hand the election to Collins” if Mills is the nominee. Mills is a very successful multi-term governor in a fairly socially conservative, rural state who was one of the early examples of an Dem pol actually talking back to Trump.
I would ideally like a political candidate whose ideological positions and stances are pretty well formed before they end up in the Senate because, if they’re mushy, then the lobbyists are just going to play them like a fiddle. I don’t think he’s a Nazi, I think he’s a line stepper and an edgelord who likes getting a rise out of people. Lots of people actually find a character flaw like that disqualifying in itself because they prefer their statesmen to be more dignified. I don’t know where I stand. I’d like to live in a world where being this sort of dipshit was inherently disqualifying but it’s hard to say so when you look at the Senate and observe dumbfucks like John Thune being majority leader, grandstanding trolls like Ted Cruz running around, and having the president of the chamber being a psychopathic bigot like J.D. Vance. I’d trust Platner more if he demonstrated in any way that he’s actually done the work, but he’s going straight from “small business owner who posts on Reddit a lot” to US Senate as far as I know. Has he run so much as a school PTO? I have no idea. There’s no data to base any conclusions as to what kind of guy he actually is.
Is there any answer to give doesn't sound dodgy? I feel those the exact vibes his opponents want people to feel. "You can't trust him, look at this mismatched quotes. He's hiding something". I...
He’s been very dodgy about whether he ever knew, when he knew, and why he kept it after finding out.
Is there any answer to give doesn't sound dodgy? I feel those the exact vibes his opponents want people to feel. "You can't trust him, look at this mismatched quotes. He's hiding something".
And there is no “almost certainly hand the election to Collins” if Mills is the nominee.
I don't see much "wrong"with Millis as a potential Senator. But I think we're past the point of wantong to make yet another race between two octogenarians for congress. She seems like a candidate who would keep things steady. But the way I see it, were already in free fall. We need a huge push and someone willing to make more radical decisions than yet another career politician.
I would ideally like a political candidate whose ideological positions and stances are pretty well formed before they end up in the Senate because, if they’re mushy, then the lobbyists are just going to play them like a fiddle.
Pre Citezen's United, I'd agree. But now, it's clear a lot of candidates get money thrown at them over the campaign to make promises, and then the strings come down once they enter office and mum's the word. Even as high up as the President of the United States, based on what happened on 2024.
And it's clear those donors dont want a real fight against this regime. I'd rather take a risk on voting someone who actually pushes back over the current Establishment who at best just doesn't get it. Or at worst just wants to play political theatre until the nightmare ends.
And this isn't just about getting Trump out. There's a litiany of issues from well before COVID, even some from pre-Trump, to get back on the table. Do I feel like Millis would vote on an aggressive corporate tax? Would she strengthen union powers? Would she entertain the idea of increasing federal minimum wage? I'm not so sure at first blush. Her policies on her website focus a lot on the basics: healthcare, education, and environment. Not much on fiscal policy.
She'll fight Trump, but what about the rest of the elite after Trump is dealt with?
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016. You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt...
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016.
You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt fascist. Use the word retard? That's a slur and it's never ever ok, hope you're fired and un-hireable.
This guy however, since it might benefit, suddenly were all about getting to know him and realizing "gee he's really just a normal person trying to make the world better, maybe we shouldn't nuke his career".
I'm not saying you personally feel this way, but I see this behavior all the time, and now suddenly its "well intent matters" with him tapdancing on basically every 3rd rail they've built since around 2016.
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign. Given...
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign.
Given both of these (+ actually going to cover up the tattoo), the odds of dog whistle vs genuine mistake tilt very heavily towards one from the other.
Whereas if your public position is ideologically way closer to being a Nazi and your disavowal is "I swear I'm not a Nazi, that tattoo is entirely innocent" and/or you keep aforementioned tattoo, like say some secretary of something, that obviously merits a different interpretation.
Basically, I feel like you are trying to accuse at least some slice of libs/leftists of hypocrisy to a degree that isn't actually aligned with facts.
My entire point is that most leftists never bother to go to the INSANE levels of detail that have been done for Plattner, and are still ignoring things that they would outright call disqualifying...
My entire point is that most leftists never bother to go to the INSANE levels of detail that have been done for Plattner, and are still ignoring things that they would outright call disqualifying in any other situation (his casual use of the word retard being one of many that I think normally qualifies).
His entire reddit history reads like many many others on reddit, twitter, or whatever else, ESPECIALLY if they have any sort of blue collar or military background. Fundamentally liberal but not really adopting the language policing that became extra popular in 2016 mixed with views that would normally get him ridiculed.
Hell just from the Jacobin article we have:
Platner’s posts also complicate the image of his racial views, right now defined by a single 2013 post charging that black people “don’t tip.” But Platner — who posted about attending a 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in Ellsworth, Maine, and criticized the local police chief who was there for refusing to take a knee — frequently expressed outrage at racism.
and then
But it’s clear this wasn’t just a matter of political strategy: Platner really likes guns, regularly gushing over various firearms (“Great piece of kit”; “Holy f*ck I want that gun. Beautiful”), defending suppressors as a legitimate hunting tool, or otherwise upbraiding gun control proponents for their ignorance about firearms, even as he called the National Rifle Association “an organization that disgusts me.”
He pointed to rural Maine as proof that relaxed gun laws didn’t mean more crime, and preferred being responsible for his own protection instead of relying on local police, whose abilities and authoritarian tendencies he distrusted. Any attempt to outlaw even just semiautomatic rifles would result in “the killings of numerous American citizens by the state,” he argued, once a ban “turn[ed] millions of innocent Americans into federal criminals overnight” and police were sent to confiscate banned guns from those who refused to give them up.
and
Platner typically expressed them in the same vulgar, politically incorrect way that has dominated recent headlines. Trump was a “fcking cnt” and a “mentally incapable narcissist,” the latter next to the word “retarded” struck through. Oliver North was a “lying piece of sht.” A Capitol rioter asking for clemency was “a fcking worthless pussy. And a traitor.” A former congressman who cheated constantly on his wife was the “epitome of the frat bro officer douchebag.”
and
Many of the stories Platner shared on Reddit about his time in the military are too offensive to print, even — or more accurately, especially — when they don’t even involve combat.
One involved what Platner termed “an old fashioned gay off,” or a game of “gay chicken,” against members of the British Royal Navy (“pale limey squids”) in a bar in Bahrain, that ended when one of the British side pulled out his genitals and had his colleague lick them. “I proudly withdrew our team on the grounds that one cannot play gay chicken if one is actually gay,” Platner wrote. Yet in other posts, Platner wrote that George Orwell’s “homophobia in [sic] indefensible in my opinion,” and expressed sympathy and sadness for a gay marine who had to hide his sexuality.
So to summarize he's a white ex military who has straight up in text evidence of:
Saying black people don't tip
Is pro gun, mentioning many points that are frequently argued over.
Has no problem using the word retard or cunt or any other word that was probably 00s acceptable and wouldn't be now. I'll just combine this one with his casual use of things like "gay off/gay chicken" as its basically the same note.
and yes accidentally got a straight up Nazi tattoo.
Buuuuuuuuut
as the article goes to great length to portray he goes to BLM protests, he hates the NRA, and he was calling Trump a retard and even crossed the word out along with lots of other great things.
Just like every other person I've known like Platner (Many ex military or active/ex police) who have been ripped the fuck apart by the modern democratic base (oh except none of the ones i've known have ever had anything close to a Nazi tattoo). This isn't even just "well it's terminally online idiots on twitter" thing so much as just straight up strangers at a bar, co workers casually talking, and straight up talking points from democratic politicians/media/influences/etc.
So yes, it turns out, when you get to know people, they're often just people. When you take their supposed worst cases, and make those lines things like "being pro gun at all" or "using any language I don't like", and never look beyond that, then yes you get a lot of enemies.
I find the entire situation just waving in everyones face what they already knew, which is that the monster they're so willing to paint of the average "conservative" or "republican" when many aren't, or are only just, basically doesn't exist.
And if you don't agree with me, that's fine, but Jacobin does:
Platner, in other words, comes off as a flawed, complicated, and sometimes contradictory human being whose political views don’t always fit neatly into a box. In that, he resembles millions of Americans — including some of the exact voter demographics that American liberals say they want to win back, yet seemingly can’t help but vilify.
Edit-
Oh i forgot because Jacobin doesn't even mention it, but he's also getting hit for how he discusses rape. Another normally 3rd rail issue that people seem to be willing to ignore suddenly.
Do you think that the same individual people who police language are the ones who are supporting Plattner though? The reason I ask is because I think there are a lot of liberals and leftists that...
Do you think that the same individual people who police language are the ones who are supporting Plattner though?
The reason I ask is because I think there are a lot of liberals and leftists that don't agree at all with the constant, insane amount of language policing and purity testing that occurs on the left. I don't actually care that Donald Trump says fuck and retard and so on. He probably shouldn't do it since he's the president, but I'm not offended by it or think he's a bad person because of it.
I think he's a bad person because he's a corrupt piece of shit enacting racist, nonsensical, counterproductive, authoritarian policies.
I know there are a lot of people on the left that get very wound up with the latest batshit thing trump tweets, and become obsessed with things like whether Elon Musk did a Nazi salute or not, or who said the n word singing along to a rap song or whatever, but are those the same people overlooking Plattner's issues? I honestly don't have an answer to that, so if you know, tell me.
Personally I don't, and have never given a lot of emphasis to the way a politician speaks, or how they personally conduct themselves as long as their policy platform aligns with my beliefs, so I don't really see a contradiction there.
In my experience yes they’re the same because the same info sources that told them to get riled up about Trump shitting on the carpet told them that “actually no he’s an ok guy and didn’t know...
In my experience yes they’re the same because the same info sources that told them to get riled up about Trump shitting on the carpet told them that “actually no he’s an ok guy and didn’t know it’s a Nazi symbol”.
They’re the same sources that told them what words were good or bad and what stances are good or bad.
It’s a major part of the problem and it’s not going away, but there’s this prevalent view that Dems are somehow automatically rational and they’re not.
The optics of this entire situation boil down to lots of people seeing the Dems scream about everything since 2016, no matter how legit, and now suddenly there’s large sections saying “well maybe him crossing every line we’ve built over the last 10 years is fine”.
It just reinforces that yep, it was about hate and making sure you had a valid reason to hate me than it ever was about some position.
The specific kind of Leftist I expect Platner is, and the people caping for him, are not the ones who would have been up in arms about using “retard.” You will find there were plenty of “dirtbag...
My entire point is that most leftists never bother to go to the INSANE levels of detail that have been done for Plattner, and are still ignoring things that they would outright call disqualifying in any other situation (his casual use of the word retard being one of many that I think normally qualifies).
The specific kind of Leftist I expect Platner is, and the people caping for him, are not the ones who would have been up in arms about using “retard.” You will find there were plenty of “dirtbag left” types who have been at loggerheads with identity-politics radical liberals all throughout the past 10 years.
Some people see a red wine and conclude it’s red. Others see a red wine and identify it as a Pinot noir, Chianti, Merlot, etc. I think what you’re seeing is factional infighting within the Left rather than hypocrisy. It’s just often obscured by the fact that these differences are rarely salient from the outside because, to most of us, these people are just annoying.
We're not on Reddit, despite Reddit somehow being a related topic on all this. I'd hope to get a bit more grace since I'm talking here and not on r/politics Intent has always mattered in my eyes....
and now suddenly its "well intent matters"
We're not on Reddit, despite Reddit somehow being a related topic on all this. I'd hope to get a bit more grace since I'm talking here and not on r/politics
Intent has always mattered in my eyes. I've been a part of unsavory groups, and ultimately I got out because I can see that eventually their words didn't match their actions. Or at least, i can see that such movements were starting to be controlled by vested interests with bad inten. I don't know how much I would have bought the idea of the "alt right pipeline" if I didn't see it unfold before my very eyes. Intent quickly changed from "let's keep politics out of this", to Trump memes in 2016, and now suddenly you forget thos was ever a hobby community with how much they complain about the same Fox News points being fed to them.
I'm against the GOP because their intents are awful and their coverups for it aren't even veiled at this point. I'm soured on the DNC because their intents seem to be more focused on order and decorum than proper progressivism. At this point I'm looking a lot more on actions than words.
Things can change andnmore evidence can arise, so my mind is never set in stone. but as of now: Platner's actions don't match the words being shoved into his mouth. It's as simple as that for me.
No, it's because he didn't try to deflect or say "well boys will be boys" or double down on it. Those are all the reasons I hate the Nazis discussions in the GOP. It came out, he owned up to it,...
The only reason he's even being given the benefit of the doubt by a large % of these people is because he happens to be on their team.
No, it's because he didn't try to deflect or say "well boys will be boys" or double down on it. Those are all the reasons I hate the Nazis discussions in the GOP.
It came out, he owned up to it, gave his story, and encouraged people to look more into his reddit history (a fate worse than death in my eyes. And I didn't even really say anything controversial on Reddit. But that history is probably more intimate than anything I've ever talked about with friends and family). That honestly is the kind person I want representing our country. Not some pristine clean cut legacy politician who spent their entire life minmaxing around being the "perfect candidate". Someone who can be on touch with the common folk and relate on the issues of their constituents.
And I especially want someone who can self reflect and say "yea that was a bad move and a stupid decision. Let's not do that again". That's a sadly dying trait in our country these days. I only really got around on his side after this kerfuffle, whereas before it's like "oh neat, he seems like a nice change of pace from the Establishment". Similar to how Mamdami seemed to really get attention once Democrats decided to fight against a properly progressive candidate (I've played those games before, DNC. Not those time).
've seen people told they deserve to be put against the wall for liking Warhammer 40k since it's clearly fascist, but this guy gets a "well he didn't know" from the same crowd?
If you want to be fair: I also did not know it was a nazi symbol until now. I seem to be learning new Nazi symbols and signs and dogwhistles every month at this rate. Among the point above, it just isnt an obvious symbol if you aren't in constant discussion on these circles. So yes, I can believe a 20-something Marine on tour in the mod 2000's wouldnt know and just think "oh cool skull tattoo, looks hardcore"
Honestly, the Marine corps in general has a LOT of cultural symbols either suggested of or straight up consisting of neo Nazi symbols. It's something they've mostly dealt with by now, but SS...
Honestly, the Marine corps in general has a LOT of cultural symbols either suggested of or straight up consisting of neo Nazi symbols. It's something they've mostly dealt with by now, but SS symbols, totenkampfs, sonnenrads and so on were (and in some cases still are) very common not only as tattoos or symbols that individuals marines use, but also as unit symbols and flags.
This isn't the fault of the young, impressionable ignorant Marines that propogate those symbols. Most of them likely don't understand their real history or why it's wrong. Most of them probably have black people and Jews in their units that they're friendly with. The branch's leadership is mostly at fault for not cracking down on it harder.
I could very much see a young marine who doesn't have a shred of racial prejudice in their mind getting a tattoo like that if everyone else in their platoon was, and not even thinking twice about the symbolism there.
Yeah, it displays poor judgement. All 20 year olds have poor judgement though, doubly so if they're Marines.
I’ve heard the argument that it’s sort of a “we take our enemies symbols and make them our own thing.” So they adopt those because they’re scary in the same way one might stuff a lion that they’ve...
I’ve heard the argument that it’s sort of a “we take our enemies symbols and make them our own thing.” So they adopt those because they’re scary in the same way one might stuff a lion that they’ve hunted.
Also I’d say before like the 2010s the vibe really was that Nazism was a historic thing and genuine Nazi revivalism hadn’t really hit the public consciousness. So I can understand it starting to feel a bit like a historical curiosity and not having the same sort of visceral impact we have seeing it today. The swastika was always a red flag, but pre-2015 if I saw any of the more esoteric symbols I’d have assumed edgy line-stepper rather than skinhead if I recognized them at all. Post-2015 they’ve suddenly become much more in vogue.
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out...
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out that the working class nationwide is diverse and varied in their backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, and everything else.
But I live in Maine and that's where Platner is running. Maine is the whitest state in the country - roughly 95%, although there are certainly larger immigrant communities in Lewiston or Portland. It's also an incredibly rural state where people care a lot about things like guns and hunting at the same time as environmental preservation and small community support. I'm not saying that any of that should excuse a Nazi symbol tattoo that someone got in earnest or anything like that. It shouldn't mean that people should compromise on their values (like some commentators were suggesting after the election - "back away from trans folks" being one that I recall) just to try and win over conservative voters who aren't voting for your candidate anyway.
But I do think it's important to think of where your base is and where the moderate voters that you might swing to your side are. That will look different here than it will on the west coast or the south or anywhere else. And building a bigger tent nationally needs to engage as many people as possible everywhere. That might mean running candidates in the plains that are focusing on different things than people in Florida or Pennsylvania or California or Texas or here in Maine. There should be some core values that we don't want to compromise on but the nature of politics has to be to meet people where they are, wherever that may be. And here that might look like an ex military rough talking guy from coastal Maine.
One of the reasons Susan Collins has as big of a base as she does is because she's from northern Maine (Caribou as she often reminds us) and they support their own. This is an area Trump carried by 10 points. But Jared Golden is a moderate to conservative Democrat who represents my district which covers this same population. I don't agree with him on a number of things but he's someone who has ran 10+ points ahead of the national Democrats here. He wouldn't win if he was running in NYC.
I have no idea what to do as far as running someone for president or the like and I'll leave that to smarter people than me. But I do live here and have a very public focused job where I interact with lots of people of all stripes across this state. And they're not bad people, mostly. At least they don't think about themselves that way. It isn't going to be possible to bring everyone who's fallen down a Trump (or other right wing) hole. But I don't think it's impossible for small D democracy to bring enough back to make things better at the local and state and regional levels even as the federal government falls apart.
It took me way too long to find an actual image of the tattoo. Apparently it was spotted in a frame from a video where Platner dances in his underwear at his brother's wedding:...
It took me way too long to find an actual image of the tattoo. Apparently it was spotted in a frame from a video where Platner dances in his underwear at his brother's wedding:
We should forgive people for what they've done decades ago, that they apologized for and seem to be different about, regardless of their race or gender. The solution isn't to exclude white men...
I find it hard to imagine that we would be having this conversation at all were Platner anything other than a fit middle-aged white guy who dresses like a stock photo of a “real man.”
We should forgive people for what they've done decades ago, that they apologized for and seem to be different about, regardless of their race or gender. The solution isn't to exclude white men from such forgiveness, it's to include everyone else. That means we should forgive Platner.
People today have issues forgiving others and accepting them despite their flaws. That doesn't mean forgetting others' transgressions or allowing them to repeat, or accepting others' flaws. See this description of "Christian love" from another thread; it should be used on bigots instead of trans people, but the method (shun someone until they repent, then re-invite them) is OK, certainly better than "cancel indefinitely". I'd actually prefer something more lenient, embarrassing and shaming people without fully excluding them; but the main point is, we can and should have zero tolerance for bigotry while accepting people who are formerly bigoted, since even close-minded small towns have zero tolerance for "sins" while accepting people who have "sinned".
The Democratic party's real issue isn't that they're too radical or too centrist, because politics isn't one-dimensional. The Democrats should be more "radical" in that they should be more blunt, confrontational, and active (as the author says). But I really think they should tolerate and forgive people much more, even if that makes them more "centrist", and that's not the same as tolerating or forgiving specific words and actions.
Some not-super-organized thoughts:
Whew that was a lot. Sorry it turned into a wall.
I think out of all the issues that the Democrats have, trans issues have the lowest popularity to positive impact ratio. What I mean by that is that these issues affect 1% of the population. Yes, they affect them very, very strongly, but if you look at any other big platform position like healthcare, immigration, taxation, immigration, abortion access, climate change and so on, trans issues affect a far, far smaller proportion of the population.
It's also one of the most contentious issues and easiest to attack, which makes it a massive weakness.
Even though in an ideal world, trans people are accepted and treated exactly like cis people, the general population is just not there yet, and lashing the entire democratic strategy to that horse just doesn't make sense from a policy perspective. The Democrats could have the most ingenious, egalitarian, fair, and well thought out platform the world has ever seen, and it just doesn't matter if they can't win. Right now, conservatives have an easy target for any democratic candidate "they can't even tell what a woman is!" or "they want to turn your son into a girl!".
It's a catchy soundbite, and it works. I'm not suggesting that Democrats abandon trans rights, but they absolutely should deemphasize it and focus on issues that most people feel the direct effects of. That doesn't mean they still can't positively impact them. We've seen reforms on the death penalty, parole, and mixed used zoning from democrats despite not really emphasizing those things, but you don't have to campaign on them. You can just quietly enact them after you're elected. It should be blatantly clear by now that Identity politics in general is just not a winning strategy for them, so focus should be on the areas they're both strong on, and which affect everyone. For instance, democratic policies are far more fiscally responsible than conservative ones, but how often do you hear democratic candidates run in fiscal responsibility?
The general population was there until the propaganda hate machine targeted trans people in general and there was no counter-messaging.
I'd love to see where you think the democrats 'lashed their entire strategy to that horse'. With the exception of a few progressive dems, they've been throwing trans people under the bus since the beginning. This whole year has them compromising on trans strategy (the consultants straight up said to fold on these issues). They are not, and have essentially never made this a major part of their strategy. What little rights trans people have won in the past two decades have been primarily behind the scenes and exceedingly small victories.
So are the dozen other soundbites that they have. Why are you so focused on this one and not any of the other dozen issues? Have you ever thought a bit more deeply about what these soundbites represent and how they are working? Because they are absolutely distilling every issue down to a catchy soundbite, and that's precisely why the right is winning. They make everything an individual issue which is what their voters care for and they simplify it down to an emotional appeal. Showing how it affects the individual, simplifying something complex, and appealing to the voters emotions are the three key components that the democrats need to focus on.
As a general thought, I'm sick and tired of this false narrative being pushed as a reason to abandon trans people. I know you're desperate for a win, but the answer is not abject cruelty to a group in the hopes that kicking them off the ladder will somehow win over voters. Guess what happens when one boogeyman is gone? They will simply shift to another one, like immigration (remember how that used to be the issue people talked about as losing the centrist voters to the right?). Stop acting like your warped sense of reality is somehow either the truth or a path forward. Not only is this both incorrect and insane, but it's exactly the kind of infighting that the people in power want. If you want to be helpful focus on the positive messages you think we're doing a bad job on. You spend all of one sentence on fiscal responsibility and the latter half of a single paragraph talking about literally anything but trans people. Be better
The general population was never there. They just never thought about it before, because there was never a concerted, massive political effort aimed at attacking trans rights. The Republican party made it an issue, so it's an issue now. It doesn't matter why it's an issue, it still remains one.
I never said they did. I said that doing so would be a mistake.
And yeah, my post was about the Democratic party's strategy with regards to trans rights because... That's what my post was about. If my post was about other things I'd be talking about other things. I'm not sure what you mean by cataloging what proportion of the post was talking about things other than what the post was about.
This is literally the only time I've posted about the Democratic party's strategy with trans issues. I promise you, this isn't what I spend most of my time on.
Warning rant with you as a springboard @Gaywallet:
I say once again let just one of the people advocating for trans people losing rights as a sound political strategy - because without the defense of them, they will be lost - tell me they're willing to lose the same rights.
If you're (general) signing up to be allowed to be legally denied fair housing protections, to be fired, harassed and arrested for your failure to gender present "appropriately" by someone else's standard, to advocate for the literal banning of your medical care, to be banned from public restrooms, to not be allowed to participate in even sports culture, because you're simultaneously cheating and superior and mentally ill and inferior... Cool at least then you're consistent.
But it's always people advocating for the loss of other people's rights. Already people are saying we shouldn't provide emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants. That US citizens should be de-naturalized. That the constitution doesn't apply to "them".
Put up or shut up. Be willing to sign up for the dehumanizing rights-denying experience or find a new talking point.
As I see it, the problem is that this is exactly what they've been trying without success. Kamala Harris never opened her mouth in support of nonbinary people that I ever heard of, but I saw "Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you" ads every single day.
In order to back away further than they already have, the Democratic party absolutely does need to vocally reject 'the trans agenda.' Nothing less will even reach the ears of swing voters, because the left simply does not control the conversation.
You are making a grave error here. These issues affect FAR more than 1%. They affect every single person with a trans friend, or a nonbinary child, or an intersex coworker. People aren't isolated individuals, they are part of a community. And I will tell you right now, if you walk into a community and start killing the 1% most vulnerable members of it, you won't generate virtuous cycles of mutual support. It gravely wounds the entire community when we decide to just give up on people we care about.
This isn't even getting into people whose chromosomes "match" the sex recorded on their birth certificate but their shoulders' width or their chin size or the size of their hands or just their attitude "doesn't match" and so they're attacked by the worst people for not being a "real" boy or girl. This isn't hypothetical; cis people have been killed by transphobes.
I do not believe there is any way whatsoever that the left can change the conversation that the right wing propaganda machine is blasting. The thing is, if we give up the trans people-- go so far as to exterminate and erase every last one-- it won't shut the propaganda machine up or calm it down. They will simply switch targets and it will continue to be effective.
They don't need to back away from trans people, they need to spend more time reaffirming their positions, which aren't radical at all. Kamala didn't support trans girls in women's sports. She didn't support transitioning without parental consent, but she rarely actually said those things. This, she let the right control the narrative and say whatever they wanted about her.
Saying screw it, we should double down and allow trans people to affirm their own gender in all situations no matter what, and our institutions will recognize that sounds good in theory, but putting that much emphasis on something that is still that unpopular will absolutely lose you an election, and how can you possibly help trans people if you don't get elected?
We're framing this as a blue collar white man problem, but those policies are unpopular with most demographics, so by supporting them you're not just saying "screw blue collar white men, we don't need them anyway, we'll rely on other demographics" doesn't really work. They're unpopular with most demographics.
That's not a comment on the morality of those politics. It's just the reality of where the country is at right now. The Democrats can't afford to adopt policies that only align with their personal morality. We live in a democracy and they need to pick platforms that people actually support.
Yep, definitely agreed.
This is a really hard turn that I don't understand. As you yourself just said, those aren't the positions any major Democrat holds.
I do not see how this is relevant. Tracy is the least popular member of the friend group, therefore...?
I disagree with this characterization as though it were some random weather. There is a system of propaganda built to ensure that this is the reality of where the country is at, right now, tomorrow, and forever.
Again, it's like you're responding to someone who I can't see or hear. They aren't doing this and are in no danger of doing this.
As we have both been saying they do virtually nothing except pick platforms nearly everyone supports. But no one who isn't terminally plugged in ever hears about it, because billionaires control the media.
In order to play the game according to the rules laid down by Murdoch, Bezos, the Kochs, Trump, Musk, etc, Democrats only need to do one very simple thing: switch sides and swear fealty.
She would have been pilloried by a vocal segment of the base if she said any of that out loud.
The problem is she only ever went halfway there. They’d ask something like “will you support gender transition being covered under Medicaid” and she’d say “I would follow the law.” That’s a dodge. It should have been more like “Everyone is entitled to medical care, you don’t want me deciding who deserves to have their needs met or not. It’s not the government’s business to be getting between trans people and their doctors, you’re weird for caring about this why are you so obsessed?”
The general argument is the same. They have healthcare coverage, it’s a medical procedure they’ve determined they need, it should be covered as all such cases should. But it creates the moral contrast. You’re either with us or you’re with these weird losers who want to snoop around in your medical records. If you don’t draw the contrast people can’t tell what you’re stand. They’re not going to parse your statement to decipher it.
I didn't disagree that she shouldn't have dodged. Dodging implies that there's a clever enough enough answer that one could thread the needle and make Fox News kick the ground dejectedly and slink away, defeated.
A forthright answer like the one you gave on the other hand comes across as real and shows compassion for the people who needed her leadership the most.
I'm suddenly reminded of the parable of the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to find the 1 lost sheep. We simply shouldn't leave our people behind in the dark.
Edit: spelling
To your point, I think the biggest issue at play is that Kamala Harris just isn't very good at popular politics. She seems to be good at the politics part of politics - raising money, building support among the right power brokers, and so on - but that's not enough to win you the presidency. It seems to be enough to win you the vice presidency, because you don't get elected, you get picked. But it's not enough to win the votes of a majority of Americans.
The seminal example demonstrating her instinct for power politics over popular politics, is, I think, the "I can't think of a thing [I would do differently than Biden]" comment. At the time President Biden was deeply unpopular, but it shows her instinct for peacekeeping and loyalty to existing powers. Obviously those aren't bad qualities but they really hurt her.
In my alternative history head cannon, Biden would have done better to make her attorney general, a job that matches her predominate experience. Then a better politician could have been chosen as VP.
Absent that, he should have picked Doug Jones as AG over Garland, since he had a track record of aggressively and successfully prosecuting white supremacist terrorism and no illusions about what the modern Republican Party would go to bat for.
I agree that the backlash towards trans issues is misleading, but it's not impossible to defeat. The solution is general honesty.
I'm sure most voters would pick a pro-trans candidate over an anti-trans candidate, if the pro-trans candidate was obviously better in other ways. They wouldn't believe Republican distortion of Democrat trans views, if Democrats seemed honest.
The real reason that Trump won is that most people's lives weren't better during Biden's presidency than Trump's, and most Democrat politicians (including Biden and Harris) were very dishonest. Hence why centrist and right-leaning voters didn't favor Democrats over Republicans, and nothing Democrats said shifted their perception more than negligibly.
Harris not speaking about non-binary people did, and Democrats openly rejecting trans issues would, actually damage the party's appearance further. Voters know that Democrats support trans people, the question is whether they have moderate "live and let live" support or Republican-propaganda "enable sexual assault" support. Unfortunately (as you note), even outright stating the former and giving the most centrist trans-friendly policies (e.g. no women in competitive sports) while explicitly disavowing anything further, won't convince many people. Because (as stated), Democrats have spun and outright lied so much, anyone not far-left doesn't believe anything they say anymore; especially when it contrasts their prior statements and the perceived effects of their prior policies.
That makes the situation seem pretty grim, but I don't believe most centrist and even moderate right voters like or believe Republican politicians either. The economy is still getting worse for the average person, and barring some miracle where Republicans fix that, voters will get sick of them. Eventually they'll start listening to Democrats again, simply because they're unhappy with the status quo and Democrats are an alternative (unless a third party rises).
Granted I'm bad at persuasion, so maybe it's not even worth saying. But my lesson to Democrats (am I a Democrat?) is: if you cannot improve people's lives, your policies have unintended consequences, and you have unpopular goals, at least be honest. Write and promote a detailed plan for when you're elected ("Project 2027" and "Project 2029"), then follow it. If the plan differs from what voters want, explain why if you think voters will understand, otherwise just admit it; the popular opinion for some policies is wrong and ignorant, voters don't know how the world works at a large scale, I say this as a voter myself. If part of the plan is infeasible or impossible (e.g. struck down by courts), apologize, then ask voters for next steps, and either do them or (again, being honest) admit you won't. Speaking of, the plan should be feasible and contain actions ("I'll create a fund for small businesses"), not outcomes ("I'll restore the middle class"); and although most voters won't care, the specific details of the actions should be somewhere, at least for you to prove to yourself that the plan really is feasible.
Voters are so disillusioned by lying politicians, I suspect even a candidate who's authentic but has terrible policies would be elected over the current ones (I suspect that helped Trump get elected). But even if voters don't intrinsically prefer honesty, it's important because it makes people in the other party actually listen to you. If the Democrats build credibility, they'll have no issues clarifying their policies and fighting Republican distortion, on trans rights and everything else. And I imagine Democrats would build credibility by being honest even when it embarrasses them, and taking concrete stances on policies that will alienate both some of their party and "centrists" in the other party, because taking any concrete stance on some policies will alienate many people. This includes being honest about trans rights, but they're only a small part; if the Democrats rebuilt credibility on trans rights it will mainly be from being honest about other policies.
It’s not an organically contentious issue. The contentions are drummed up by agitprop for the specific reasons you cite. Trans people are rare, most people will not (knowingly) interact with one in person with any regularity, but their issues are lurid and they challenge conventional understandings of how things work. There is no actual reason people NEED to have opinions on it, but if the media is constantly pushing them to have opinions on it (almost definitionally opinions that will be formed in ignorance) they’re going to end up having perspectives that approach it as a theoretical thing without any real input.
It’s important to recognize that they’re not after trans people for any reason other than them being easy targets. If the trans people were no longer the easiest targets they’d just find the next easiest targets on the list. You can’t just let them salami-slice your coalition, you need to speak out against singling people out on account of their identity period. You can’t try to run from it by pivoting the discussion to something else. You have to call out that the other guy is being a dick. You need to tell him to mind his own business, that being a bully is pathetic behavior, that leering under people’s skirts is disgusting. You have to take the offensive.
One of the reasons the Gay Marriage folks won the argument was because they successfully created a simple contrast. You’re either with us, or you’re with the Westboro Baptist Church people. You have to make the bigots more repulsive than their victims. It’s not as if the Klan stopped being popular because they were hateful bigots, there remained plenty of hateful bigots throughout the country. They stopped being popular because the popular consensus was that they were ignorant, gap-toothed, hillbilly, cousin-fucking, alcoholic, terrorists. Being the bad guy needs to prompt more of a visceral “disgust” response than being one of the good guys.
(I apologize in advance that this will sound really offensive. I'm only talking logistically in this comment and do support trans rights)
Trans issues are a talking point purely driven the GOP. And of course it is never brought up in good faith (Trump was complaining about trans athletes... In the middle of a meeting with Canada). I don't think I've ever seen any democratic policy maker actively bring it up themselves.
But in this age of social media, it is an effective soundbite that will reverberate among the internet, around by LGBT and bigots alike. It doesn't even matter if a response deflects to to say "I'll leave those issues to the patient's doctors" or "I'm here to make sure everyone can eat, get a job, and buy a house.". The soundbite doesn't need to that part.
That's really a distillation of how the Charlie Kirk strategy works. Pick a sensitive issue, take a hard stace, edit, and let the fire spread and viewership grow. There's really no good way to engage with such rhetoric.
Trust me, I completely agree with you. Trans people existed 20 years ago and people didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about them besides an offensive joke in a movie here and there. They've used the bathrooms that match their gender identify for... probably forever and it was never controversial. I very much realize that it was never an issue for most people until the Republican party stumbled on it as a winning strategy, and it's something the Democratic party never particularly advocated for.
However, in the world of realpolitik, it now is an issue. It's not something that Democrats can afford to just ignore and pretend that it's 20 years ago. The perception from the general voting public that swung to Trump is that Democrats strongly want kids to be able to identify as whatever they like, get surgeries behind their parents backs with no oversight, that we LOVE drag queen story hours, and so on.
It doesn't matter that they're not actually advocating for any of that, it matters that that's the perception, and all of those things are deeply unpopular, so if they continue to have that weakness, they'll continue to lose elections. People are voting solely on that basis in some cases, usually entirely against their own best interests.
I suppose this begs ththe question of: how would you address this? I don't think the strategy here is to abandon and attack the trans community.
The only thing I see working is to make sure the real points are louder than the spin. If you see someone who you think will make sure you can get a job and afford a house, you'll start to ignore the opposition who is instead going "but trans athletes!". But I'm open to ideas.
(this one got long and was a completely distinct point, so I separated it to another reply)
If it's not about taxes (i.e. tax breaks) or otherwise literally giving people momey, people tend to snooze out in fiscal policy. That is a very important point that policy constantly impacts. But its very clear that the same social media circles who will talk social issues are completely braindead on proper fiscal policy.
The best soundbite Democrats have is "tax the rich" but that's still not popular to say among those are are funded by the rich, of not rich themselves already. Hence why candodars like Mamdami are getting so much pushback from being a progressive outsider, even from rhe Democrats until recently.
So you can't talk money to laymen. You talk housing and jobs.
Housing is the most controversial issue to talk about right now, because you're splitting amongst generations. Old people want to keep value on their houses. Young people want affordable housing. A decade ago, old people outnumbered the young voters, so who to appeal to was obvious (even before looking at the age of policy makers themselves) . Its less obvious now, but the outdated systems on how policy makers get their feedback (at 10AM on Tuesdays at Town Halls, or via phone calls) favor older retired folk, or those not working a 9-5. So there the issues lie.
Jobs are on the other spectrum, where it's an aspect policy has the least impact on. You can't really make people get hired, you either give employees more protections (which businesses will fight tooth and nail against) or you give tax credits or subsidies to businesses and try to encourage them to hire more. But in a cooling market like this it's hard to make a horse drink without inflating the hell out of the dollar in the process.
I also think this is also the part where it feels like all politicians are the most out of touch as well. Because the numbers on the paper look great. Low unemployment, slightly less spending but the GOP is up. And of course, they have jobs themselves, so what's wrong? Breaking down the realities (or putting in a candidate whose undergone the modern circus of the last few years) will probably be the biggest challenge.
For those who need it, here's a paywall bypass.
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election. I found this quote towards the end the most important
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require said people to want healing generally) is bizarre to me given the data we have.
But also, the NYT was the one pushing an article that framed white non-college educated men in direct opposition to women with a college degree, showing their "gain" against the "loss" of those specific white men while not including any other men or how women without a degree have fared.
And I think that is intentionally not painting a full picture to sell that narrative of winners and losers. I guess I'm saying that if the NYT would like to stop selling the narrative, or at the very least paint a more honest, complete, picture, the centrist Dems that listen to them might be swayed. (And if the complete picture shows something other than what I think it would, I do still welcome/demand it.)
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate.
A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically fuck up at every opportunity". As much as we can all argue about perfect strategies there's so much screaming in the face of what the dems have, and continue, to do. 2024's possible improvements start with "pick an actual fucking candidate before your ancient one has to drop out of the race"
Biden was basically a "oh fuck anyone but Bernie" candidate. One that a previous, popular president would obviously endorse. And yes, that was because Dems really didn't have any other popular name out there to push against Sanders that was still under the Establishment.
Them dropping Hilary and doing nothing the next 4 years really attests to that. Hell, to this day: the fact that a California Govenor's name (whose popularity before this year was falling moee and more) is talks around 2028 shows how this Establishment still doesn't get it (after having another 4 years, and then scuttling to jam Harris in last minute).
Sanders spent his life tilling his field and then by his twilight years is spending some decade+ training a potential successor. Meanwhile the establishment spends years digging holes and then only realizes on election year that they need to find a tree somewhere and jam it in the hole.
I'll keep saying it in that the old strategies of "pander to modeates" is not working anymore. Let's instead think about why 8m voters decided to stay home compared go 2020. Some of it is rigged, yes (shocker that when forced to do mail in ballots that suddenly turnout ot higher, and how does the GOP treat that?). But it clearly also didn't mean that all 8m switched to Trump.
That was the great thing Obama did in his election run (even if his real impact on office fell short of it): he energized voters and felt like a true force of change. But afterwards, the dems just coasted on that and let the momentum peter out. We need that again, and it's a shame the potential candidates who can do that are suppressed rather than fostered
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even accurately!) is not the rhetorical killshot it should be. But more to the point, we have over a dozen years of his pre-politics internet comments to trawl through for evidence of his beliefs. And while I see a lot of edgy ex-military banter and disappointing but fairly normie levels of sexism/racism/homophobia, I do not see evidence of hateful bigotry or extremist white nationalism. If anything, he very clearly denounces Nazis, genocide, Trumpism, etc., while embracing more left-wing/anti-fascist philosophy. The idea of him being a dumb drunk twentysomething jarhead who got the tattoo because it looked cool and then either never realized the symbolism or (more likely) did but felt un-implicated because that's not why he got it feels far more likely given that history.
Now, that doesn't mean he has great judgment, is electable against Collins, or would make a good senator versus his primary opponents. But he's obviously not a Nazi, and insisting he is (and that anyone who doesn't automatically reject him is a Nazi, too) is self-defeatingly stupid when he has a double-digit lead among Maine Democrats right now.
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into.
The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending on the issue.) already has people desensitized to the entire discussion, but then when you have a candidate who has a literal nazi symbol on their body, and you've got huge portions of your base AND elected representation talking about dog whistles and actual nazi's in the leadership, what else can you do?
It's very possible this is exactly as you described and a "uhh didn't know" situation, but bluntly if this guy wasn't running for a major office and we just saw his face on twitter and the tattoo people would be calling for his head and saying "oh sure now he says he doesn't know". The only reason he's even being given the benefit of the doubt by a large % of these people is because he happens to be on their team.
I've seen people told they deserve to be put against the wall for liking Warhammer 40k since it's clearly fascist, but this guy gets a "well he didn't know" from the same crowd? And I want to be clear it's not just the terminally online, but the "tangentially involved" as well. I know many well meaning people who will spout off whatever the current talking point is (much as most people do), and it's hard to take them remotely seriously when they show just how little their actual position matters vs what they're told matters, as what happens when these stories come up.
Bluntly its insane to me that "literal nazi tattoo" isn't enough to disqualify and instead is just a discussion. As much as everyone likes to point out that the last 100 years of US politics and society was far from perfect, that's been a pretty big "your political career is fucking over" for most of that time, and I think it should be.
To be clear that's as someone who absolutely believes people can change, things can get better, and we need to understand and forgive more. This however is absolutely well within the territory of not even close to fucking worth risking it, and more importantly, it's important to send the message that yes this is not acceptable under any circumstances.
I think a lot of the culture has taken the idea of dog whistles the wrong way.
The definition is something like "something that can indicate membership or support of a bigoted group or idea, but can also be innocuous". The whole reason why they're so powerful is because of how they could really go either way.
The treatment of it that I have a problem with is the response of "so thus we should treat all instances of it as prohibited". The whole reason they're dog whistles in the first place is because they can potentially be innocent.
I don't think you can make an argument that a swastika is a dogwhistle. But a totenkampf? It's one variation of probably 10,000 different skulls the military uses in symbols all over the place, and the wider culture uses constantly. If I showed 100 people a totenkampf, I'd be surprised if 20 of them identified it as a Nazi symbol. To me, despite being a Nazi symbol, it falls into the dogwhistle category.
Dogwhistles can never really be firmly judged, which is why they're so powerful. They're a potential indicator that someone has extremist or bigoted beliefs, but only an indicator. You'd have to look into that person's behavior in the past to determine if it aligns with that dogwhistle or not.
I think however, this is a nuanced take that doesn't translate well to campaigns. Things are either good or bad. Electorates don't believe in "it depends", or "it's unclear".
For what it’s worth I agree. The country as a whole has just dived into conspiracies in my eyes and that’s often what dog whistles boil down to.
It starts with some very obvious “ok we all know what they mean” instance but then explodes to “the shape of the debate stage is signaling to nazis! “ level issues.
That said a straight up Nazi symbol isn’t a “welll maybe”. I think most reasonable people can understand how a military guy could wind up with that tattoo without understanding what it meant, but I can also totally understand saying “well then you shouldn’t have run”. Plenty of good candidates just can’t get elected due to the perception of the things they did. I’m fine with “literal Nazi tattoo” still being one
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up and has disavowed those beliefs.
Best case, he wins the democratic nomination, and then gets elected to the senate and we gain another progressive ally. If his opponent in the primary wins(I can't remember her name), it will almost certainly hand the election to Collins as she's just another octagenarian mealy mouthed liberal who thinks she can play boths sides. Worst case, Platner gets elected and he turns into Fetterman. What did we lose? Collins' seat should be an easy flip for anyone who actually wants to help the working class.
Ehhh. He has definitely not been honest or forthright about it. He’s been very dodgy about whether he ever knew, when he knew, and why he kept it after finding out. He’s actually been caught in lies about that based on various testimonies, and he didn’t even get it covered up until AFTER it became a political liability at which point you can’t plausibly argue there was any sincere motivation driving it besides wanting to win.
And there is no “almost certainly hand the election to Collins” if Mills is the nominee. Mills is a very successful multi-term governor in a fairly socially conservative, rural state who was one of the early examples of an Dem pol actually talking back to Trump.
I would ideally like a political candidate whose ideological positions and stances are pretty well formed before they end up in the Senate because, if they’re mushy, then the lobbyists are just going to play them like a fiddle. I don’t think he’s a Nazi, I think he’s a line stepper and an edgelord who likes getting a rise out of people. Lots of people actually find a character flaw like that disqualifying in itself because they prefer their statesmen to be more dignified. I don’t know where I stand. I’d like to live in a world where being this sort of dipshit was inherently disqualifying but it’s hard to say so when you look at the Senate and observe dumbfucks like John Thune being majority leader, grandstanding trolls like Ted Cruz running around, and having the president of the chamber being a psychopathic bigot like J.D. Vance. I’d trust Platner more if he demonstrated in any way that he’s actually done the work, but he’s going straight from “small business owner who posts on Reddit a lot” to US Senate as far as I know. Has he run so much as a school PTO? I have no idea. There’s no data to base any conclusions as to what kind of guy he actually is.
Is there any answer to give doesn't sound dodgy? I feel those the exact vibes his opponents want people to feel. "You can't trust him, look at this mismatched quotes. He's hiding something".
I don't see much "wrong"with Millis as a potential Senator. But I think we're past the point of wantong to make yet another race between two octogenarians for congress. She seems like a candidate who would keep things steady. But the way I see it, were already in free fall. We need a huge push and someone willing to make more radical decisions than yet another career politician.
Pre Citezen's United, I'd agree. But now, it's clear a lot of candidates get money thrown at them over the campaign to make promises, and then the strings come down once they enter office and mum's the word. Even as high up as the President of the United States, based on what happened on 2024.
And it's clear those donors dont want a real fight against this regime. I'd rather take a risk on voting someone who actually pushes back over the current Establishment who at best just doesn't get it. Or at worst just wants to play political theatre until the nightmare ends.
And this isn't just about getting Trump out. There's a litiany of issues from well before COVID, even some from pre-Trump, to get back on the table. Do I feel like Millis would vote on an aggressive corporate tax? Would she strengthen union powers? Would she entertain the idea of increasing federal minimum wage? I'm not so sure at first blush. Her policies on her website focus a lot on the basics: healthcare, education, and environment. Not much on fiscal policy.
She'll fight Trump, but what about the rest of the elite after Trump is dealt with?
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016.
You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt fascist. Use the word retard? That's a slur and it's never ever ok, hope you're fired and un-hireable.
This guy however, since it might benefit, suddenly were all about getting to know him and realizing "gee he's really just a normal person trying to make the world better, maybe we shouldn't nuke his career".
I'm not saying you personally feel this way, but I see this behavior all the time, and now suddenly its "well intent matters" with him tapdancing on basically every 3rd rail they've built since around 2016.
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign.
Given both of these (+ actually going to cover up the tattoo), the odds of dog whistle vs genuine mistake tilt very heavily towards one from the other.
Whereas if your public position is ideologically way closer to being a Nazi and your disavowal is "I swear I'm not a Nazi, that tattoo is entirely innocent" and/or you keep aforementioned tattoo, like say some secretary of something, that obviously merits a different interpretation.
Basically, I feel like you are trying to accuse at least some slice of libs/leftists of hypocrisy to a degree that isn't actually aligned with facts.
My entire point is that most leftists never bother to go to the INSANE levels of detail that have been done for Plattner, and are still ignoring things that they would outright call disqualifying in any other situation (his casual use of the word retard being one of many that I think normally qualifies).
His entire reddit history reads like many many others on reddit, twitter, or whatever else, ESPECIALLY if they have any sort of blue collar or military background. Fundamentally liberal but not really adopting the language policing that became extra popular in 2016 mixed with views that would normally get him ridiculed.
Hell just from the Jacobin article we have:
and then
and
and
So to summarize he's a white ex military who has straight up in text evidence of:
and yes accidentally got a straight up Nazi tattoo.
Buuuuuuuuut
as the article goes to great length to portray he goes to BLM protests, he hates the NRA, and he was calling Trump a retard and even crossed the word out along with lots of other great things.
Just like every other person I've known like Platner (Many ex military or active/ex police) who have been ripped the fuck apart by the modern democratic base (oh except none of the ones i've known have ever had anything close to a Nazi tattoo). This isn't even just "well it's terminally online idiots on twitter" thing so much as just straight up strangers at a bar, co workers casually talking, and straight up talking points from democratic politicians/media/influences/etc.
So yes, it turns out, when you get to know people, they're often just people. When you take their supposed worst cases, and make those lines things like "being pro gun at all" or "using any language I don't like", and never look beyond that, then yes you get a lot of enemies.
I find the entire situation just waving in everyones face what they already knew, which is that the monster they're so willing to paint of the average "conservative" or "republican" when many aren't, or are only just, basically doesn't exist.
And if you don't agree with me, that's fine, but Jacobin does:
Edit-
Oh i forgot because Jacobin doesn't even mention it, but he's also getting hit for how he discusses rape. Another normally 3rd rail issue that people seem to be willing to ignore suddenly.
Do you think that the same individual people who police language are the ones who are supporting Plattner though?
The reason I ask is because I think there are a lot of liberals and leftists that don't agree at all with the constant, insane amount of language policing and purity testing that occurs on the left. I don't actually care that Donald Trump says fuck and retard and so on. He probably shouldn't do it since he's the president, but I'm not offended by it or think he's a bad person because of it.
I think he's a bad person because he's a corrupt piece of shit enacting racist, nonsensical, counterproductive, authoritarian policies.
I know there are a lot of people on the left that get very wound up with the latest batshit thing trump tweets, and become obsessed with things like whether Elon Musk did a Nazi salute or not, or who said the n word singing along to a rap song or whatever, but are those the same people overlooking Plattner's issues? I honestly don't have an answer to that, so if you know, tell me.
Personally I don't, and have never given a lot of emphasis to the way a politician speaks, or how they personally conduct themselves as long as their policy platform aligns with my beliefs, so I don't really see a contradiction there.
In my experience yes they’re the same because the same info sources that told them to get riled up about Trump shitting on the carpet told them that “actually no he’s an ok guy and didn’t know it’s a Nazi symbol”.
They’re the same sources that told them what words were good or bad and what stances are good or bad.
It’s a major part of the problem and it’s not going away, but there’s this prevalent view that Dems are somehow automatically rational and they’re not.
The optics of this entire situation boil down to lots of people seeing the Dems scream about everything since 2016, no matter how legit, and now suddenly there’s large sections saying “well maybe him crossing every line we’ve built over the last 10 years is fine”.
It just reinforces that yep, it was about hate and making sure you had a valid reason to hate me than it ever was about some position.
The specific kind of Leftist I expect Platner is, and the people caping for him, are not the ones who would have been up in arms about using “retard.” You will find there were plenty of “dirtbag left” types who have been at loggerheads with identity-politics radical liberals all throughout the past 10 years.
Some people see a red wine and conclude it’s red. Others see a red wine and identify it as a Pinot noir, Chianti, Merlot, etc. I think what you’re seeing is factional infighting within the Left rather than hypocrisy. It’s just often obscured by the fact that these differences are rarely salient from the outside because, to most of us, these people are just annoying.
We're not on Reddit, despite Reddit somehow being a related topic on all this. I'd hope to get a bit more grace since I'm talking here and not on r/politics
Intent has always mattered in my eyes. I've been a part of unsavory groups, and ultimately I got out because I can see that eventually their words didn't match their actions. Or at least, i can see that such movements were starting to be controlled by vested interests with bad inten. I don't know how much I would have bought the idea of the "alt right pipeline" if I didn't see it unfold before my very eyes. Intent quickly changed from "let's keep politics out of this", to Trump memes in 2016, and now suddenly you forget thos was ever a hobby community with how much they complain about the same Fox News points being fed to them.
I'm against the GOP because their intents are awful and their coverups for it aren't even veiled at this point. I'm soured on the DNC because their intents seem to be more focused on order and decorum than proper progressivism. At this point I'm looking a lot more on actions than words.
Things can change andnmore evidence can arise, so my mind is never set in stone. but as of now: Platner's actions don't match the words being shoved into his mouth. It's as simple as that for me.
No, it's because he didn't try to deflect or say "well boys will be boys" or double down on it. Those are all the reasons I hate the Nazis discussions in the GOP.
It came out, he owned up to it, gave his story, and encouraged people to look more into his reddit history (a fate worse than death in my eyes. And I didn't even really say anything controversial on Reddit. But that history is probably more intimate than anything I've ever talked about with friends and family). That honestly is the kind person I want representing our country. Not some pristine clean cut legacy politician who spent their entire life minmaxing around being the "perfect candidate". Someone who can be on touch with the common folk and relate on the issues of their constituents.
And I especially want someone who can self reflect and say "yea that was a bad move and a stupid decision. Let's not do that again". That's a sadly dying trait in our country these days. I only really got around on his side after this kerfuffle, whereas before it's like "oh neat, he seems like a nice change of pace from the Establishment". Similar to how Mamdami seemed to really get attention once Democrats decided to fight against a properly progressive candidate (I've played those games before, DNC. Not those time).
If you want to be fair: I also did not know it was a nazi symbol until now. I seem to be learning new Nazi symbols and signs and dogwhistles every month at this rate. Among the point above, it just isnt an obvious symbol if you aren't in constant discussion on these circles. So yes, I can believe a 20-something Marine on tour in the mod 2000's wouldnt know and just think "oh cool skull tattoo, looks hardcore"
Honestly, the Marine corps in general has a LOT of cultural symbols either suggested of or straight up consisting of neo Nazi symbols. It's something they've mostly dealt with by now, but SS symbols, totenkampfs, sonnenrads and so on were (and in some cases still are) very common not only as tattoos or symbols that individuals marines use, but also as unit symbols and flags.
This isn't the fault of the young, impressionable ignorant Marines that propogate those symbols. Most of them likely don't understand their real history or why it's wrong. Most of them probably have black people and Jews in their units that they're friendly with. The branch's leadership is mostly at fault for not cracking down on it harder.
I could very much see a young marine who doesn't have a shred of racial prejudice in their mind getting a tattoo like that if everyone else in their platoon was, and not even thinking twice about the symbolism there.
Yeah, it displays poor judgement. All 20 year olds have poor judgement though, doubly so if they're Marines.
I’ve heard the argument that it’s sort of a “we take our enemies symbols and make them our own thing.” So they adopt those because they’re scary in the same way one might stuff a lion that they’ve hunted.
Also I’d say before like the 2010s the vibe really was that Nazism was a historic thing and genuine Nazi revivalism hadn’t really hit the public consciousness. So I can understand it starting to feel a bit like a historical curiosity and not having the same sort of visceral impact we have seeing it today. The swastika was always a red flag, but pre-2015 if I saw any of the more esoteric symbols I’d have assumed edgy line-stepper rather than skinhead if I recognized them at all. Post-2015 they’ve suddenly become much more in vogue.
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out that the working class nationwide is diverse and varied in their backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, and everything else.
But I live in Maine and that's where Platner is running. Maine is the whitest state in the country - roughly 95%, although there are certainly larger immigrant communities in Lewiston or Portland. It's also an incredibly rural state where people care a lot about things like guns and hunting at the same time as environmental preservation and small community support. I'm not saying that any of that should excuse a Nazi symbol tattoo that someone got in earnest or anything like that. It shouldn't mean that people should compromise on their values (like some commentators were suggesting after the election - "back away from trans folks" being one that I recall) just to try and win over conservative voters who aren't voting for your candidate anyway.
But I do think it's important to think of where your base is and where the moderate voters that you might swing to your side are. That will look different here than it will on the west coast or the south or anywhere else. And building a bigger tent nationally needs to engage as many people as possible everywhere. That might mean running candidates in the plains that are focusing on different things than people in Florida or Pennsylvania or California or Texas or here in Maine. There should be some core values that we don't want to compromise on but the nature of politics has to be to meet people where they are, wherever that may be. And here that might look like an ex military rough talking guy from coastal Maine.
One of the reasons Susan Collins has as big of a base as she does is because she's from northern Maine (Caribou as she often reminds us) and they support their own. This is an area Trump carried by 10 points. But Jared Golden is a moderate to conservative Democrat who represents my district which covers this same population. I don't agree with him on a number of things but he's someone who has ran 10+ points ahead of the national Democrats here. He wouldn't win if he was running in NYC.
I have no idea what to do as far as running someone for president or the like and I'll leave that to smarter people than me. But I do live here and have a very public focused job where I interact with lots of people of all stripes across this state. And they're not bad people, mostly. At least they don't think about themselves that way. It isn't going to be possible to bring everyone who's fallen down a Trump (or other right wing) hole. But I don't think it's impossible for small D democracy to bring enough back to make things better at the local and state and regional levels even as the federal government falls apart.
It took me way too long to find an actual image of the tattoo. Apparently it was spotted in a frame from a video where Platner dances in his underwear at his brother's wedding:
https://i.horizon.pics/7cSXoq6doJ.jpg
We should forgive people for what they've done decades ago, that they apologized for and seem to be different about, regardless of their race or gender. The solution isn't to exclude white men from such forgiveness, it's to include everyone else. That means we should forgive Platner.
People today have issues forgiving others and accepting them despite their flaws. That doesn't mean forgetting others' transgressions or allowing them to repeat, or accepting others' flaws. See this description of "Christian love" from another thread; it should be used on bigots instead of trans people, but the method (shun someone until they repent, then re-invite them) is OK, certainly better than "cancel indefinitely". I'd actually prefer something more lenient, embarrassing and shaming people without fully excluding them; but the main point is, we can and should have zero tolerance for bigotry while accepting people who are formerly bigoted, since even close-minded small towns have zero tolerance for "sins" while accepting people who have "sinned".
The Democratic party's real issue isn't that they're too radical or too centrist, because politics isn't one-dimensional. The Democrats should be more "radical" in that they should be more blunt, confrontational, and active (as the author says). But I really think they should tolerate and forgive people much more, even if that makes them more "centrist", and that's not the same as tolerating or forgiving specific words and actions.