ADVERTISEMENT

The Atlantic: The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity

Colonoscopy

HB Legend
Gold Member
Feb 20, 2022
15,674
18,029
113
52
Saint Louis, Mo
Man point: they couldn't or wouldn't distance themselves from unpopular far lefty progressive viewpoints.

The party went into an election with policies it couldn’t defend—or even explain.
By Helen Lewis

One of the mysteries of this election is how the Democrats approached polling day with a set of policies on gender identity that they were neither proud to champion—nor prepared to disown.

Although most Americans agree that transgender people should not face discrimination in housing and employment, there is nowhere near the same level of support for allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports—which is why Donald Trump kept bringing up the issue. His campaign also barraged swing-state voters and sports fans with ads reminding them that Kamala Harris had previously supported taxpayer-funded gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. The commercials were effective: The New York Times reported that Future Forward, a pro-Harris super PAC, found that one ad “shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.” The Harris campaign mostly avoided the subject.

Since the election, reports of dissent from this strategy have begun to trickle out. Bill Clinton reportedly raised the alarm about letting the attacks go unanswered, but was ignored. After Harris’s loss, Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts went on the record with his concerns. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” he told the Times. The recriminations go as far as the White House, where allies of Joe Biden told my colleague Franklin Foer that the current president would have countered Trump’s ads more aggressively, and “clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in women’s sports.”

One problem: Biden’s administration has long pushed the new orthodoxy on gender, without ever really explaining to the American people why it matters—or, more crucially, what it actually involves. His officials have advocated for removing lower age limits for gender surgeries for minors, and in January 2022, his nominee for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, refused to define the word woman, telling Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, “I’m not a biologist.”

On sports—an issue seized on by the Trump campaign—Biden’s White House has consistently prioritized gender identity over sex. Last year, the Department of Education proposed regulations establishing “that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are.” Schools were, however, allowed to limit participation in specific situations. (In April, with the election looming, this part of the Title IX revision was put on hold.) Harris went into the campaign tied to the Biden administration’s positions, and did not have the courage, or strategic sense, to reject them publicly. Nor did she defend them.

The fundamental issue is that athletes who have gone through male puberty are typically stronger and faster than biological females. Rather than contend with that fact, many on the left have retreated to a comfort zone of claiming that opposition to trans women in women’s sports is driven principally by transphobia. But it isn’t: When trans men or nonbinary people who were born female have competed in women’s sports against other biological females, no one has objected. The same season that Lia Thomas, a trans woman, caused controversy by swimming in the women’s division, a trans man named Iszac Henig did so without any protests. (He was not taking testosterone and so did not have an unfair advantage.) Yet even talking about this issue in language that regular Americans can understand is difficult: On CNN Friday, when the conservative political strategist Shermichael Singleton said that “there are a lot of families out there who don’t believe that boys should play girls’ sports,” he was immediately shouted down by another panelist, Jay Michaelson, who said that the word boy was a “slur,” and he “was not going to listen to transphobia at this table.” The moderator, Abby Phillips, also rebuked Singleton, telling him to “talk about this in a way that is respectful.”

A few Democrats, such as Colin Allred, a Senate candidate in Texas, attempted to counter Republicans’ ads by forcefully supporting women’s right to compete in single-sex sports—and not only lost their races anyway, but were attacked from the left for doing so. In states such as Texas and Missouri, the political right is surveilling and threatening to prosecute parents whose children seek medical treatments for gender dysphoria, or restricting transgender adults’ access to Medicaid. In this climate, activists believe, the Democrats should not further jeopardize the rights of a vulnerable minority by legitimizing voters’ concerns. “Please do not blame trans issues or trans people for why we lost,” Sam Alleman, the Harris campaign’s LBGTQ-engagement director, wrote on X. “Trans folks have been and are going to be a primary target of Project 2025 and need us to have their backs now more than ever.”
 
During the race, many journalists wrote about the ubiquity—and the grimness—of the Trump ads on trans issues, notably Semafor’s David Weigel. But at the time, I was surprised how dismissive many commentators were about their potential effect, given the enormous sums of money involved. My theory was that these ads tapped into a larger concern about Democrats: that they were elitists who ruled by fiat, declined to defend their unpopular positions, and treated skeptics as bigots. Gender might not have been high on voters’ list of concerns, but immigration and the border were—and all the same criticisms of Democratic messaging apply to those subjects, too.

Not wishing to engage in a losing issue, Harris eventually noted blandly that the Democrats were following the law on providing medical care to inmates, as Trump had done during his own time in office. On the integrity of women’s sports, she said nothing.

How did we get here? At the end of Barack Obama’s second term, gay marriage was extended to all 50 states, an achievement for which LGBTQ groups had spent decades campaigning. In 2020, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County found that, in the words of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” Those advances meant that activist organizations, with large staffs and existing donor networks, had to go looking for the next big progressive cause. Since Trump came to power, they have stayed relevant and well funded by taking maximalist positions on gender—partly in reaction to divisive red-state laws, such as complete bans on gender medicine for minors. The ACLU, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, and other similar groups have done so safe in the knowledge that they answer to their (mostly wealthy, well-educated) donors, rather than a more diverse and skeptical electorate. “The fundamental lesson I hope Dem politicians take from this election is that they should not adopt positions unless they can defend them, honestly, in a one-on-one conversation with the median American voter, who is a white, non-college 50-yr-old living in a small-city suburb,” the author (and Atlantic contributing writer) James Surowiecki argued last week on X.

Even now, though, many Democrats are reluctant to discuss the party’s positions on trans issues. The day after Moulton made his comments, his campaign manager resigned in protest, and the Massachusetts state-party chair weighed in to say that they “do not represent the broad view of our party.” But Moulton did not back down, saying in a statement that although he had been accused of failing “the unspoken Democratic Party purity test,” he was committed to defending the rights of all Americans. “We did not lose the 2024 election because of any trans person or issue. We lost, in part, because we shame and belittle too many opinions held by too many voters and that needs to stop.”

Gilberto Hinojosa, the chair of the Texas Democrats, faced a similar backlash. He initially told reporters, “There’s certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support,” but he quickly walked back the comments. “I extend my sincerest apologies to those I hurt with my comments today,” Hinojosa said. “In frustration over the GOP’s lies to incite hate for trans communities, I failed to communicate my thoughts with care and clarity.” (On Friday, he resigned, citing the party’s “devastating” election results in the state.)

The tragedy of this subject is that compromise positions are available that would please most voters, and would stop a wider backlash against gender nonconformity that manifests as punitive laws in red states. America is a more open-minded country than its toughest critics believe—the latest research shows that about as many people believe that society has not gone far enough in accepting trans people as think that it has gone too far. Delaware has just elected the first transgender member of Congress, Sarah McBride. But most voters think that biological sex is real, and that it matters in law and policy. Instructing them to believe otherwise, and not to ask any questions, is a doomed strategy. By shedding their most extreme positions, the Democrats will be better placed to defend transgender Americans who want to live their lives in peace.
 
The election was not won or lost on gender identity.

Every election campaign has its own wedge themes. Color, but not lines
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
On CNN Friday, when the conservative political strategist Shermichael Singleton said that “there are a lot of families out there who don’t believe that boys should play girls’ sports,” he was immediately shouted down by another panelist, Jay Michaelson, who said that the word boy was a “slur,” and he “was not going to listen to transphobia at this table.” The moderator, Abby Phillips, also rebuked Singleton, telling him to “talk about this in a way that is respectful.”

Good grief.
 
The tragedy of this subject is that compromise positions are available that would please most voters, and would stop a wider backlash against gender nonconformity that manifests as punitive laws in red states. America is a more open-minded country than its toughest critics believe—the latest research shows that about as many people believe that society has not gone far enough in accepting trans people as think that it has gone too far. Delaware has just elected the first transgender member of Congress, Sarah McBride. But most voters think that biological sex is real, and that it matters in law and policy. Instructing them to believe otherwise, and not to ask any questions, is a doomed strategy. By shedding their most extreme positions, the Democrats will be better placed to defend transgender Americans who want to live their lives in peace.

As is the case with virtually every other supposedly divisive issue that is "tearing our country apart". Abortion, immigration, etc...there's literally a common ground that 70% of the population would support, or at least could live with. Both parties, Republicans just as much, are committed to the extremes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley
The election was not won or lost on gender identity.

Every election campaign has its own wedge themes. Color, but not lines

Agreed. However, as this piece correctly points out, the trans issue is more of a symbolic one for the Democrats than an actual one. You could make the case that adopting an obviously outlier position, that seems absurd to a massively broad section of people, and having neither the interest or ability to defend it, is very germane to why the democrats lost the election.

Because that's exactly how the Democrats treated inflation, insisting it didn't exist, clearly lying about it, and belittling those that dare question it.

It's how they dealt with Covid as well...masks, school closures, vaccines...adopt an orthodoxy first, in the face of evidence to the contrary, and try to browbeat everyone into capitulation with the combined forces of government, mainstream media, institutions, and recently corporate America.

The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

This is just L after L after L for Democrats. And every one of those things, despite being incredibly obviously wrong to even slightly interested observers, included enforced compliance by threat of law, cancellation, loss of job, deplatforming, etc.

Basically, the Democrats have a massive "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" problem, but also "If you say your eyes, we will demonetize you/get you fired/call you a bigot" tossed on top.

And this really isn't debatable. Any remotely sophisticated Democratic observers know this is the case. Instead of actually having to make a case or cogently convince everyone, the attempt has been to ensure orthodoxy not through reasoning but by cornering the power of government, institutions, social media, traditional media, and corporations and enforce it through power. They won the institutions, but lost the ability to make their case to regular people.

That said, the stranglehold on institutions and culture IS slipping, it will likely be further damaged by a Trump administration, and I think virtually EVERYONE among the Democrats realizes that they have to get back to actual persuasion and talking about things people care about. That is really what this column is about in my opinion.

(Of course, Republicans do sort of the same, but they have a way of picking things that are very difficult to nullify, by the same "eyes" standard. Immigrants may not be causing a ton of crime, but as long as some illegals continue to murder people, it's really tough to say it's not happening. So they are able to convince people there is MORE crime, WORSE inflation, MORE transgenders in girls sports, MORE gender ideology in kindergarten classrooms, etc. They just need to keep finding one. It's pretty effective rhetorically, but not a good situation either when it comes to good governance, if you're always attacking ghosts.)
 
Last edited:
Agreed. However, as this piece correctly points out, the trans issue is more of a symbolic one for the Democrats than an actual one. You could make the case that adopting an obviously outlier position, that seems absurd to a massively broad section of people, and having neither the interest or ability to defend it, is very germane to why the democrats lost the election.

Because that's exactly how the Democrats treated inflation, insisting it didn't exist, clearly lying about it, and belittling those that dare question it.

It's how they dealt with Covid as well...masks, school closures, vaccines...adopt an orthodoxy first, in the face of evidence to the contrary, and try to browbeat everyone into capitulation with the combined forces of government, mainstream media, institutions, and recently corporate America.

The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

This is just L after L after L for Democrats. And every one of those things, despite being incredibly obviously wrong to even slightly interested observers, included enforced compliance by threat of law, cancellation, loss of job, deplatforming, etc.

Basically, the Democrats have a massive "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" problem, but also "If you say your eyes, we will demonetize you/get you fired/call you a bigot" tossed on top.

And this really isn't debatable. Any remotely sophisticated Democratic observers know this is the case. Instead of actually having to make a case or cogently convince everyone, the attempt has been to ensure orthodoxy not through reasoning but by cornering the power of government, institutions, social media, traditional media, and corporations and enforce it through power. They won the institutions, but lost the ability to make their case to regular people.

That said, the stranglehold on institutions and culture IS slipping, it will likely be further damaged by a Trump administration, and I think virtually EVERYONE among the Democrats realizes that they have to get back to actual persuasion and talking about things people care about. That is really what this column is about in my opinion.

(Of course, Republicans do sort of the same, but they have a way of picking things that are very difficult to nullify, by the same "eyes" standard. Immigrants may not be causing a ton of crime, but as long as some illegals continue to murder people, it's really tough to say it's not happening. So they are able to convince people there is MORE crime, WORSE inflation, MORE transgenders in girls sports, etc. Not an ideal situation either)
Fantastic post!
 
part of the problem with the left is if you dare speak against some of these issues, you are attacked.
Look R's have way more warts/issues than D's. But D's refuse to take the W by just being sane.
Oh I get that. Bill Maher is a perfect example. I agree with him almost always even when he attacks the left. I did NOT agree with him a couple of Fridays ago and that's rare.

I laugh how quickly the left on Threads turn on MSNBC hosts if they say one damn thing that doesn't align with their beliefs. Even the Republicans on there are fair. If more Americans would watch Nicolle Wallace's show or Lawrence O'Donnell's it would be a better place. Much better than listening to Hannity, Laura, or Jessie. Never ending lies.
 
Agreed. However, as this piece correctly points out, the trans issue is more of a symbolic one for the Democrats than an actual one. You could make the case that adopting an obviously outlier position, that seems absurd to a massively broad section of people, and having neither the interest or ability to defend it, is very germane to why the democrats lost the election.

Because that's exactly how the Democrats treated inflation, insisting it didn't exist, clearly lying about it, and belittling those that dare question it.

It's how they dealt with Covid as well...masks, school closures, vaccines...adopt an orthodoxy first, in the face of evidence to the contrary, and try to browbeat everyone into capitulation with the combined forces of government, mainstream media, institutions, and recently corporate America.

The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

This is just L after L after L for Democrats. And every one of those things, despite being incredibly obviously wrong to even slightly interested observers, included enforced compliance by threat of law, cancellation, loss of job, deplatforming, etc.

Basically, the Democrats have a massive "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" problem, but also "If you say your eyes, we will demonetize you/get you fired/call you a bigot" tossed on top.

And this really isn't debatable. Any remotely sophisticated Democratic observers know this is the case. Instead of actually having to make a case or cogently convince everyone, the attempt has been to ensure orthodoxy not through reasoning but by cornering the power of government, institutions, social media, traditional media, and corporations and enforce it through power. They won the institutions, but lost the ability to make their case to regular people.

That said, the stranglehold on institutions and culture IS slipping, it will likely be further damaged by a Trump administration, and I think virtually EVERYONE among the Democrats realizes that they have to get back to actual persuasion and talking about things people care about. That is really what this column is about in my opinion.

(Of course, Republicans do sort of the same, but they have a way of picking things that are very difficult to nullify, by the same "eyes" standard. Immigrants may not be causing a ton of crime, but as long as some illegals continue to murder people, it's really tough to say it's not happening. So they are able to convince people there is MORE crime, WORSE inflation, MORE transgenders in girls sports, MORE gender ideology in kindergarten classrooms, etc. They just need to keep finding one. It's pretty effective rhetorically, but not a good situation either when it comes to good governance, if you're always attacking ghosts.)
Animated GIF
 
As Nole mentioned above, it was really an election on reality.

A lot of this is solved, and in fact reversed on the Republicans who are pressing it too far the other way, by simply saying

"We 100% percent support the right of a man to live as a woman or a woman to live as a man, in pursuit of their own happiness without harassment, in all but a handful of female only spaces. We will strongly reject attempts to legislate against or discriminate against people living their life as they want"

Instead of:

"We insist that each and every person, and each and every space, 100% accept that a man is literally a woman if they say so, under the threat of legal and financial penalty."

Most Americans have an inherent appreciation for freedom and politeness, and would be 100% fine with that first statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

"Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party." -- George Orwell, 1984.
 
Neither side wants to have an honest conversation regarding the George Floyd riots.

1) The toxicology report likely was true
2) A bench trial likely would have produced a different result for Chauvin
3) Systemic racism and inequities in the system exist and this is what it truly was about, not Floyd.
 
Agreed. However, as this piece correctly points out, the trans issue is more of a symbolic one for the Democrats than an actual one. You could make the case that adopting an obviously outlier position, that seems absurd to a massively broad section of people, and having neither the interest or ability to defend it, is very germane to why the democrats lost the election.

Because that's exactly how the Democrats treated inflation, insisting it didn't exist, clearly lying about it, and belittling those that dare question it.

It's how they dealt with Covid as well...masks, school closures, vaccines...adopt an orthodoxy first, in the face of evidence to the contrary, and try to browbeat everyone into capitulation with the combined forces of government, mainstream media, institutions, and recently corporate America.

The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

This is just L after L after L for Democrats. And every one of those things, despite being incredibly obviously wrong to even slightly interested observers, included enforced compliance by threat of law, cancellation, loss of job, deplatforming, etc.

Basically, the Democrats have a massive "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" problem, but also "If you say your eyes, we will demonetize you/get you fired/call you a bigot" tossed on top.

And this really isn't debatable. Any remotely sophisticated Democratic observers know this is the case. Instead of actually having to make a case or cogently convince everyone, the attempt has been to ensure orthodoxy not through reasoning but by cornering the power of government, institutions, social media, traditional media, and corporations and enforce it through power. They won the institutions, but lost the ability to make their case to regular people.

That said, the stranglehold on institutions and culture IS slipping, it will likely be further damaged by a Trump administration, and I think virtually EVERYONE among the Democrats realizes that they have to get back to actual persuasion and talking about things people care about. That is really what this column is about in my opinion.

(Of course, Republicans do sort of the same, but they have a way of picking things that are very difficult to nullify, by the same "eyes" standard. Immigrants may not be causing a ton of crime, but as long as some illegals continue to murder people, it's really tough to say it's not happening. So they are able to convince people there is MORE crime, WORSE inflation, MORE transgenders in girls sports, MORE gender ideology in kindergarten classrooms, etc. They just need to keep finding one. It's pretty effective rhetorically, but not a good situation either when it comes to good governance, if you're always attacking ghosts.)

Just to follow up on the case that the issue wasn't transgender policy PER SE, it was what the Democrats' position on transgender policy represented...

Transgender policy was literally one of the lowest ranked issues in this election, and those that ranked transgenders as a top 3 issue were overwhelmingly for Harris. The idea that Republican voters are obsessed with transgender policy or terrified of transgenders, or scared dimwitted people into fear of transgenders...none of that bore out. The reason the ads worked so well, and the transgender issue hurts Democrats so bad, is because of what it SAYS about Democrats, not any actual policy.

 
That said...Harris was basically cooked no matter what she did (and I think she ran as good a campaign as possible), as inflation, border and economy swamped everything else, and Trump won those handily.
 
Agreed. However, as this piece correctly points out, the trans issue is more of a symbolic one for the Democrats than an actual one. You could make the case that adopting an obviously outlier position, that seems absurd to a massively broad section of people, and having neither the interest or ability to defend it, is very germane to why the democrats lost the election.

Because that's exactly how the Democrats treated inflation, insisting it didn't exist, clearly lying about it, and belittling those that dare question it.

It's how they dealt with Covid as well...masks, school closures, vaccines...adopt an orthodoxy first, in the face of evidence to the contrary, and try to browbeat everyone into capitulation with the combined forces of government, mainstream media, institutions, and recently corporate America.

The "mostly peaceful" riots, the idea that gatherings were dangerous until the George Floyd protests at which point Covid didn't spread in gatherings, the idea that school closures would have no lasting effects, the idea that kids needed to be vaccinated, the idea that expanded voting in Georgia was Jim Crow on steroids, that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian misinformation, the insistence that the border was secure, that inflation wasn't a problem and was transitory, and now the insistence that biological men have no physical advantage in female sports.

This is just L after L after L for Democrats. And every one of those things, despite being incredibly obviously wrong to even slightly interested observers, included enforced compliance by threat of law, cancellation, loss of job, deplatforming, etc.

Basically, the Democrats have a massive "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" problem, but also "If you say your eyes, we will demonetize you/get you fired/call you a bigot" tossed on top.

And this really isn't debatable. Any remotely sophisticated Democratic observers know this is the case. Instead of actually having to make a case or cogently convince everyone, the attempt has been to ensure orthodoxy not through reasoning but by cornering the power of government, institutions, social media, traditional media, and corporations and enforce it through power. They won the institutions, but lost the ability to make their case to regular people.

That said, the stranglehold on institutions and culture IS slipping, it will likely be further damaged by a Trump administration, and I think virtually EVERYONE among the Democrats realizes that they have to get back to actual persuasion and talking about things people care about. That is really what this column is about in my opinion.

(Of course, Republicans do sort of the same, but they have a way of picking things that are very difficult to nullify, by the same "eyes" standard. Immigrants may not be causing a ton of crime, but as long as some illegals continue to murder people, it's really tough to say it's not happening. So they are able to convince people there is MORE crime, WORSE inflation, MORE transgenders in girls sports, MORE gender ideology in kindergarten classrooms, etc. They just need to keep finding one. It's pretty effective rhetorically, but not a good situation either when it comes to good governance, if you're always attacking ghosts.)
Very solid, sir. i tend to think the R nut will be tougher to crack, in that it's taken on a bit of an almost religious-like character in the past few years. (On the D side, to be sure, it has come close to that line too, but not without a personal association to a candidate). When passion crosses that particular line, it can take time to undo.
 
Just to follow up on the case that the issue wasn't transgender policy PER SE, it was what the Democrats' position on transgender policy represented...

Transgender policy was literally one of the lowest ranked issues in this election, and those that ranked transgenders as a top 3 issue were overwhelmingly for Harris. The idea that Republican voters are obsessed with transgender policy or terrified of transgenders, or scared dimwitted people into fear of transgenders...none of that bore out. The reason the ads worked so well, and the transgender issue hurts Democrats so bad, is because of what it SAYS about Democrats, not any actual policy.

The thing about this is that I think it reveals an interesting electoral tactical dynamic. Specifically, the Trump campaign was premised on winning the median, whereas the Harris campaign was premised on a coalition of a lot of smaller interests. Risky, imo.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
Very solid, sir. i tend to think the R nut will be tougher to crack, in that it's taken on a bit of an almost religious-like character in the past few years. (On the D side, to be sure, it has come close to that line too, but not without a personal association to a candidate). When passion crosses that particular line, it can take time to undo.

Yep. I think the Ds COULD definitely fix themselves a lot easier than Rs because there is no single, apparently insurmountable obstacle. They could just collectively decide to focus on normalcy, which there are a LOT of voices on that side calling for, and there is no single entity to stop that.

Whereas, as long as Trump is in the picture, any attempt at R normalcy is futile.

That said...it could end up being the opposite. Not at all convinced there is another Trump to skew the party...he's broken most R ties to most real policy ideology, it's possible that the Rs worst problems go away when Trump does, while the Ds have to play whack a mole with all their problematic stakeholders.

But I will say this...it does feel like Democrats are talking seriously about what it will take to win. They seem to be taking to heart the need to actually win elections. It is a bit hollow to say after a resounding Trump victory, but in the Trump era, in my opinion Republicans place actually winning behind other things, including Trump's ego, owning the libs, grifting the rubes, promoting conspiracies, exacting revenge, throwing tantrums, etc. Instead, on the Democrat side it does seem like a lot of sober analysis and discussion about what it will take to win.
 
The election was not won or lost on gender identity.

Every election campaign has its own wedge themes. Color, but not lines
This issue isn't just a single issue, it represents a mindset. It's nearly impossible for people not having this mindset to understand it, much less try to embrace it.
 
Just to follow up on the case that the issue wasn't transgender policy PER SE, it was what the Democrats' position on transgender policy represented...

Transgender policy was literally one of the lowest ranked issues in this election, and those that ranked transgenders as a top 3 issue were overwhelmingly for Harris. The idea that Republican voters are obsessed with transgender policy or terrified of transgenders, or scared dimwitted people into fear of transgenders...none of that bore out. The reason the ads worked so well, and the transgender issue hurts Democrats so bad, is because of what it SAYS about Democrats, not any actual policy.

Right... They/them was a great metaphor for Dems being out of touch in regards to what people actually care about.
 
"Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party." -- George Orwell, 1984.

The 2020 election was stolen.

Not willing to admit that truth? You are not welcome in the GOP.
 
The 2020 election was stolen.

Not willing to admit that truth? You are not welcome in the GOP.
Art, I'd amend that very slightly to say "the Administration."

A buddy of mine is in the mix for a second or third level political appointment, and when they were vetting him a few months ago, one of the questions they asked was along the lines of "would you be willing to say that Trump won the 2020 election".
 
Art, I'd amend that very slightly to say "the Administration."

A buddy of mine is in the mix for a second or third level political appointment, and when they were vetting him a few months ago, one of the questions they asked was along the lines of "would you be willing to say that Trump won the 2020 election".
Gross
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyTheObvious
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT