What did Democrats do wrong?

[theprestige]

From dirtywick's link, 80% of Dem voters want a politician who will protect trans people from discrimination. That alone tells you that a politician who adopts the conservative anti-trans stance would be unelectable as a Democrat. But d4m10n has this X tweet saying 39% of Americans want that discrimination, as if that's a majority or a consensus.

Newsflash: that 39% is just the Republican base. It's not a national shift in opinion, it's just the official GOP platform of bigotry. The Dems couldn't peel off Republican voters when those guys were considering electing a convicted felon who openly said he'd be a dictator, so the idea that Democrats should have thrown trans rights under the bus and alienated 80% of their own base to chase that sweet, sweet bigot vote is political nonsense.

As demonstrated by how Goldwater trounced LBJ after he passed the unpopular Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

All of which has to do with the electability of a position, not the morality of it. Tell it to arth, not me.

You know where to find me, if you want to discuss the morality of trans privilege in public policy, anti-science "medicine" in the name of trans ideology, and how public opinion shifts when people realize that protection from discrimination is already a done deal in law and policy, and that what's being pushed now is insane and anti-social privileges.

 

[Donal]

No, I'll leave the current trend in bigotry in the thread it belongs (well, that thread and Epstein Island). I was just pointing out how history flies in the face of what you tried to say. Candidates and other prominent people can very much drive voters in the direction they want. For instance, a lot of the pro-segrag...err anti-trans hysteria is relatively new because it was the latest cause brought up by the Friends of Epstein to distract us.

The CRA and VRA were both polling underwater at the time (but gaining steam) LBJ was burning any political capital he had left to get them passed. By the time it actually went through Congress, the VRA was up to 58%. That happened because LBJ and the democrats jumped in front on the issue made their case.

 

[d4m10n]

But d4m10n has this X tweet saying 39% of Americans want that discrimination, as if that's a majority or a consensus.

Over 50% of respondents either strongly or moderately support a federal bathroom bill, there is no way that is "just the Republican base."

ETA: If you scroll down a bit in the linked article, you can see the breakout by how respondents voted in 2024.

 

[Segnosaur]

Then you're missing the point, and jamming the thread with noise.

Politicians who get too far ahead of public sentiment lose elections, even if the politician wants good things and public sentiment is heading in the right direction.

As demonstrated by how Goldwater trounced LBJ after he passed the unpopular Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Umm... not sure if you were making a joke about that... But, I did some googling.

It looks like almost twice as many voters approved of the civil rights act as opposed it. (58% approved, 31% disapprove)

See: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...l-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/

 

[wareyin]

Over 50% of respondents either strongly or moderately support a federal bathroom bill, there is no way that is "just the Republican base."

ETA: If you scroll down a bit in the linked article, you can see the breakout by how respondents voted in 2024.

View attachment 69219

Your table shows that support for a hypothetical federal bathroom bill is 81% among Trump voters but collapses to 25% among Harris voters. That most definitely is the Republican base. Even more telling is how the anti-trans bigots like to frame this as a women's safety issue, yet only 35% of women strongly support this national law. If only 1/3 of the people it's supposed to protect are actually on board with a policy, that's a small, loud minority, not a mandate.

As I said, a Dem politician adopting a pro-bigotry stance will alienate the vast majority of Democratic voters to chase Republicans who have proven as long as he has an R next to his name, they will elect a pedophile who ◊◊◊◊◊ his pants in the oval office. And ascribing importance to "somewhat support" seems to be trying to pad your numbers. "Eh, I guess I could maybe support that?" is "somewhat support," but that typically means the poll respondent hasn't even considered the position.

Outside of the Republican base, the majority of the country ain't looking for people to stand guard and check what's in their underwear every time they use the bathroom.

 

[Segnosaur]

The CRA and VRA were both polling underwater at the time (but gaining steam) LBJ was burning any political capital he had left to get them passed. By the time it actually went through Congress, the VRA was up to 58%. That happened because LBJ and the democrats jumped in front on the issue made their case.

A couple of things to keep in mind...

First LBJ managed to "get in front of" the civil rights act, but he was actually president at the time. Its easy to "push" for something when you are in a position of power. But you have to win in the first place. This can change the dynamics.

Secondly, the demographics are substantially different. More people are impacted by the civil rights act, the people affected were more visible, etc.

Note: I am not saying that trans rights are an issue that should be ignored. I think they should have the right to use the proper bathroom, compete in sports, etc. The issue is whether they should make it a central focus of an election campaign, or wait until they are in power and "sneak" the changes in when nobody is looking.

 

[d4m10n]

That most definitely is the Republican base.

¼ of Harris voters are part of the GOP base, got it.

Dem politician adopting a pro-bigotry stance will alienate the vast majority of Democratic voters

In gender critical spaces it is considered bigotry (i.e. “misogyny”) to deprive females of female-only spaces by allowing males into those spaces. Activists on both sides frame their opponents as irredeemable bigots, which means no one has weigh pros vs cons or even consider the possibility of trade-offs.

 

[wareyin]

¼ of Harris voters are part of the GOP base, got it.
In gender critical spaces it is considered bigotry (i.e. “misogyny”) to deprive females of female-only spaces by allowing males into those spaces. Activists on both sides frame their opponents as irredeemable bigots, which means no one has weigh pros vs cons or even consider the possibility of trade-offs.

You are using push polling from a new digital magazine that was founded specifically to argue that Democrats have become too radical. Even then, you had to substantially pad the numbers with soft support just to find that 1/4 of Harris voters, all while ignoring the overwhelming 81% of Republicans who actually drive this view. Got it.

As for your "both sides" nonsense, can it. It's dishonest framing. If the overwhelming majority of women don't support your law, shoehorning in loaded "depriving females of female-only spaces" ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You can advocate for federal agents inspecting people's genitals before allowing access to the bathroom all you want, but don't expect the rest of us to not think you're a weirdo for doing so.

 

[Donal]

Umm... not sure if you were making a joke about that... But, I did some googling.

It looks like almost twice as many voters approved of the civil rights act as opposed it. (58% approved, 31% disapprove)

See: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...l-rights-but-support-for-selma-demonstrators/

Yes, after LBJ had already signed it. That poll you cited was conducted in September and released in October of 1964. The Act was signed in April. A similar bill from a few years earlier died in Congress. A lot of that turn around was due to the work of Democrats.

 

[Donal]

A couple of things to keep in mind...

First LBJ managed to "get in front of" the civil rights act, but he was actually president at the time. Its easy to "push" for something when you are in a position of power. But you have to win in the first place. This can change the dynamics.

Yes, but that's part of my frustration with the modern Democratic Party. They don't fully wield power when they get it. And there's nothing that says you have to wait once you get in. Politics is "vibes based" now. You can argue it always was. One thing Republicans can do is drive the conversation they way they want it. They are the ones that made transgender people an issue when the Democrats had the trifecta. that's not even a top 20 issue for most Americans, but they flooded the airwaves with it.

Secondly, the demographics are substantially different. More people are impacted by the civil rights act, the people affected were more visible, etc.

Note: I am not saying that trans rights are an issue that should be ignored. I think they should have the right to use the proper bathroom, compete in sports, etc. The issue is whether they should make it a central focus of an election campaign, or wait until they are in power and "sneak" the changes in when nobody is looking.

Fair point. There's also the issue of Truman desegregating the military prior, so you had white guys and black guys fighting side by side. But, back to one of my points above, they don't need to make it a central issue. Bring a real platform, trumpet something like affordability and point out how the Republicans are running a playbook written on Epstein Island. "Do you really think these creeps are concerned with the safety of women and children? So, lets get down to the things that actually affect you..."

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes, but that's part of my frustration with the modern Democratic Party. They don't fully wield power when they get it. And there's nothing that says you have to wait once you get in.

I can understand your frustration.

Maybe its a case of democrats giving too much thought about the 'next election'.

Or maybe its a combination of narrow political margins and a static political system. (Remember, in the first few years of Biden's term, the senate was tied, and they had to rely on Manchin, a democrat from a red state, to get bills passed. If the political system were more dynamic, with wider margins, they might be in a position to push for more changes.)

Politics is "vibes based" now. You can argue it always was. One thing Republicans can do is drive the conversation they way they want it.

I think the republicans have an advantage because their message is so simple. Incorrect, but simple. This allows them to do the equivalent of a "gish gallop".

Republican: "Men shouldn't compete with women in sports"
Democrat: "The number of athletes this impacts is small, and the hormone therapy a trans athlete will be on will destroy most of the 'advantage' they had from being born male."

One message works better as a sound bite.

They are the ones that made transgender people an issue when the Democrats had the trifecta. that's not even a top 20 issue for most Americans, but they flooded the airwaves with it.

I have to say, the whole "trans" thing is a bit... weird.

I am from Canada, so our politics here is skewed a little more to the "left" than the American political system. But I brought up the issue of "trans people in sports" with friends/family, and they were strongly opposed. And these were not hard-core conservatives.

 

[wareyin]

I can understand your frustration.

Maybe its a case of democrats giving too much thought about the 'next election'.

Or maybe its a combination of narrow political margins and a static political system. (Remember, in the first few years of Biden's term, the senate was tied, and they had to rely on Manchin, a democrat from a red state, to get bills passed. If the political system were more dynamic, with wider margins, they might be in a position to push for more changes.)

I think the republicans have an advantage because their message is so simple. Incorrect, but simple. This allows them to do the equivalent of a "gish gallop".

Republican: "Men shouldn't compete with women in sports"
Democrat: "The number of athletes this impacts is small, and the hormone therapy a trans athlete will be on will destroy most of the 'advantage' they had from being born male."

One message works better as a sound bite.

I have to say, the whole "trans" thing is a bit... weird.

I am from Canada, so our politics here is skewed a little more to the "left" than the American political system. But I brought up the issue of "trans people in sports" with friends/family, and they were strongly opposed. And these were not hard-core conservatives.

Not for nothing, but conservatives have been hammering the idea that any trans woman is actually a roided up muscular guy in a wig into people's heads for years. So much so that even Canadian "not hard-core conservatives" are likely unaware that "the hormone therapy a trans athlete will be on will destroy most of the 'advantage' they had from being born male."

The sound bite works because it was backed by a massive $215 million anti-trans ad campaign. By November 2024, about 41% of the Trump campaign's total ad spend was focused on this one issue. When one side spends hundreds of millions to scream a simple, scary lie and the other side either stays silent or has to stumble over the messy, won't fit on a bumper sticker, but true explanation, the public doesn't reach a "consensus." They just react to the only message they're actually hearing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's like saying crazy is not the same thing as idiotic.


On such matters, I'm inclined to pay more attention to damage estimates that have been accepted by courts or estimated by the General Accounting Office than to opinions expressed by some pseudonymous cat.

Prosecutors, using an early calculation provided by the Architect of the Capitol, told courts the direct damage was $1,495,326.55. (Ya gotta love the 55 cents.) Courts accepted that figure as a basis for restitution imposed during sentencing. Rounded to $1.5 million , that is the number most often used by those who wish to downplay the damage.

Near the beginning of a 122-page report responding to a request from Congress, the General Accounting Office wrote:

That's "billion" with a B, not an M.

No problem, I totally understand. Damaging a little bit of rich people's stuff is way, way, way worse than damaging a lot of poor people's stuff.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The funny thing is not only is this basic norm, but I was under the impression these forums have a higher standard

We used to. That hasn't seemed to apply in political discussions for about a decade though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most people aren't trying to force trans men to use the women’s room or trans women to use the men’s. The bigoted folks who do want that sure seem itching to take on the job of checking what's in everyone else's underwear a bit too eagerly.

You're the one insisting that obviously male people with completely intact genitals should be given right-by-law to override female sexual boundaries and consent and be granted access to all female intimate spaces based on their claims about their internal feelings.

Why are you so invested in making sure that males have the legal right to flash their dicks at unconsenting females, or to look at partially or fully unclothed females without permission? Why are you so gung-ho to legalize flashing and peeping?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ummm.. how about no?

There are a lot of democrats who are protesting Israeli actions in Gaza. But there is not some 'large portion' protesting under the Hamas banner and calling for terrorist actions against civilian targets.

It is quite possible for someone to say "perhaps Israel shouldn't be bombing Palestinian targets indiscriminately" without them actually saying "I think Hamas was right to kill babies".

On the other hand, there is no such nuance with the right-wing protesters in the charlotsville protests. The meaning of the swastika flag was very clear, and still the "fine people" decided to protest under it.

There have been a much, much, much higher number of self-proclaimed progressives and liberal walking alongside protesters carrying hamas flags, and taking part in chanting "from the river to the sea" and calling for global intifada. By your own logic, that makes them terrorist supporters. It's very clear that hamas is a terrorist organization, and that the chants are blatantly anti-semitic and calls for literally murdering non-muslims.

Why do you give nuance and consideration to the left-wing protestors who failed to distance themselves from the hateful terrorist supporting people because "they were only protesting israel's actions, not supporting terrorists"? But you simultaneously remove all nuance and consideration to anyone who protested the removal of statues and the renaming of parks, because there were white supremacists present.

You use different rules depending on whether you support or oppose the party that dominates the action.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually quite solid.

Whatever failings Biden had due to his age, Trump's mental decline is much much worse. Biden on his worst day was better than Trump on his best day.

And that is JUST regarding the issues surrounding age. It ignores the fact that Trump is racist (something biden is not), is a convicted felon (something biden is not), drove several businesses into bankruptcy (something biden did not).

You're right, I don't expect republicans to block a republican president. Because they are corrupt themselves.

They SHOULD block a corrupt/inept president. But they won't.
Well, of course you wouldn't think that. Because you're OK with fascism in American and don't want to make yourself look bad.

But, consider:
- Trump tried to over throw the 2020 election. Hmm... overriding democracy... one of the expected actions of an authoritarian government
- Ignoring the courts (as the trump administration as repeatedly done, in particular over immigration issues) and the legislature (as they are doing with the epstein files). Another sign of an authoritarian government
- bigotry (such as trump having lunch with a white nationalist, or claiming immigrants are "eating dogs'

So yeah, pretty much fills the checklist of "authoritarian".

You had the chance to try to block a fascist leader, and instead threw away your vote. Then try to justify it by minimizing/ignoring the actions of the fascist.

You might not be a 'die-hard republican', but you are definitely a-OK with fascism.

I would hope that republicans would vote for democrats because they see the damage Trump is causing to the country.

I am not trying to 'win votes'. I am not a democratic politician, i am not setting policy. This forum is basically an isolated environment which, rightly or wrongly, is for a debate among a small group of self-selected individuals.

I am pointing out that you are A-Ok with fascism not because I think its going to help bring the democrats to power, but because I like to debate on line, and I have no qualms about pointing out someone is A-Ok with fascism when, in effect, they ARE ok with fascism.

Trump checks all the check boxes you would expect with a fascist/authoritarian dictator... tried to overthrow democracy, ignores judiciary/legislature, engages in bigotry. We knew what he was going to be like before the 2024 election. You looked at that and said "I don't think that sort of fascist behavior is worth voting against." and spoiled your ballot.

So yeah, you are A-Ok with fascism.

Your post is full of falsehoods about me. You hold seemingly hypocritical views, and apply your criteria in a selective manner.

Stop spreading intentional misinformation.

 

[wareyin]

You're the one insisting that obviously male people with completely intact genitals should be given right-by-law to override female sexual boundaries and consent and be granted access to all female intimate spaces based on their claims about their internal feelings.

Why are you so invested in making sure that males have the legal right to flash their dicks at unconsenting females, or to look at partially or fully unclothed females without permission? Why are you so gung-ho to legalize flashing and peeping?

You love to pretend none of us have ever been in a public bathroom before. We don't walk around naked in there, lady, and nobody is legalizing crimes like flashing or peeping which are already illegal. In your bigotry you're demanding a state sanctioned harassment that would end up harming any woman who doesn't fit your specific idea of what a female should look like. We’ve already seen multiple instances of "born female" women being barred from or harassed in bathrooms because they didn't look feminine enough for some self appointed underwear inspector. You're so gung ho to police other people's bodies that you're asking for people to inspect your own partially or fully unclothed body before allowing you to take a dump.

 

[Emily's Cat]

the claim that Emily's Cat's anti-trans views aren't bigoted because she thinks most people agree with her.

I think my views are completely discriminatory, and I think that's a good thing. I'm unapologetically opposed to allowing males to use female single-sex spaces where females are partially or fully unclothed or are particularly vulnerable.

I think that's an entirely reasonable position for females to take. I also think that males who are heavily invested in getting access to those spaces for males don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about females at all, and could very reasonably be considered misogynistic bullies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're still trying to use popularity as a shield for prejudice. The number of people who agree with a bigoted view has zero bearing on whether that view is bigoted. If you need a historical reminder, the masses have been on the wrong side of almost every civil rights struggle in this country’s history.

As for Obama, whataboutisms won't get you anywhere. The fact that a politician made a bigoted, politically motivated calculation two decades ago doesn't make Emily's Cat's current views any less bigoted. It just means politicians are often the last ones to find a moral compass. Further, it's absurd that you're using a politician's past failure to find a moral compass as a way to complain that the Democratic party finally found one. You're essentially arguing that because being bigoted used to be the safe bet to get more votes, the party is now "elitist" for deciding that civil rights shouldn't be up for a popularity contest.

Yes, yes, it's completely "bigoted" to exclude males from female intimate spaces. Females should just shut our mouths and know our places, and let males do whatever they want. Consent is irrelevant when it comes to the feelings of males.