Oh, I agree with that. I just think you utterly failed to make that case.
If you want to do so, you should use my actual words–not paraphrases which distort my words. Paraphrasing to make it seem as though I said something I didn’t does not create an argument. It creates only a bullying (due to your position) frame-up.
That’s all true.
But one pattern that seems to hold is: voters prefer the candidate that seems stronger. More confident.
(Also: taller. Which is certainly not something that speaks well for us.)
Harris didn’t come across as ‘weak’ in any respect, to me anyway. But I do wonder what might have happened had Donald been her exact height, instead of (with his lifts) over 6 feet tall.
Close, that last sentence is what doesn’t make it a rule violation,
Quoting. Falsely attributing a quote to another SDMB user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. We allow parody quotes under certain conditions. Here are the permissible options:
Quote attributed to real SDMB user. Quotes must be accurate, whether displayed using the message board’s quote function or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply. You may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote to change the substantive meaning, nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [QUOTE] tags or quotation marks. This applies to all forums including the Pit.
Unattributed quote (no name). Unattributed parody quotes are permitted in all forums provided they don’t violate other SDMB rules.
Where, IMHO, parody is more “offensive” than a paraphrase ever could be.
And you paraphrased while providing direct quotes making it very easy to see if you were overstating the position.
I did. Every paraphrase was preceded by a direct quote from one of your posts.
You may, at your own leisure, point out where any of my paraphrases were materially incorrect.
Moderating:
If you feel anyone posting has violated the rules, FLAG it so a forum moderator can review - and a thank you to the poster who did for this discussion. @Sherrerd, that would have been the better route than discussing it in P&E. As such, I’m tabling the discussion here where it’s a hijack AND Jr. Modding. I suggest you open an ATMB thread if you want to discuss it further.
To all, please do not address these points here, I’ll document the approximate start with a note as well.
Very solid post.
We dont care about his deplorable base. 
Maybe, let us hope.
It’s possible that the combination of his comment-of-indifference-to-Americans’-welfare, added to the very visible results of that indifference—the gas prices, the food prices, the ending of Medicaid in blue states*, etc. etc.—might actually get through to some of the Base. The independents will surely be noticing how Donald’s self-absorption is harming us all. The base may be starting to have difficulty in lalala-ing it away.
*Medicaid:
my bolding in the quote
I recall someone writing somewhere that, “Democrats are more interested in being the opposition party and criticizing the bigots in power, than in getting power itself.”
While a broad-brush statement, I think it does encapsulate a lot of the party and its strategy. The party would rather take a particular approach, feel good , and lose to the (R) bigots in elections, than change tactics a bit, win, and topple the bigots and take power to enact change.
And typically, a lot of Ds then respond by claiming that changing tactics would not lead to winning, which is meant to assuage pain and make them feel better about not having changed.
It’s kind of like Jerry Jones syndrome: I want to win, but only if winning is done my way.
While I think that there’s no reasonable or rational reason a woman or a POC can’t run for any office they choose, and should be just as electable as anyone else, that’s regrettably not how it works in today’s United States.
Look at Kamala Harris. The general consensus seems to be that two things doomed her. One, many voters felt like there was a cover-up going on with how bad-off Biden was, and that Harris was thrust upon them at the last second once the cover up was exposed. And two, she was a woman, and a person of color.
That second one unfortunately was a big deal to a lot of people, just like Barack Obama being a black man was a big negative deal to many people. Just like I suspect Pete Buttigieg’s sexuality will be a huge deal for many if he runs for national office again.
So with that in mind, it’s prudent, if not politically correct to not feed ther prejudices. I mean, I love Colin Allred as a candidate for anything, but the color of his skin hinders him in elections around here. I think Jasmine Crockett’s outspokenness played into “sassy black woman” stereotypes that hurt her performance in the primary vs. Talarico.
Speaking of Talarico… he’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about- he’s smart, he’s competent, and he doesn’t give the other side hardly any ammunition to attack him with. He’s got a better chance than Beto O’Rourke did last time around, and likely because he’s not playing into their hands.
That’s just an argument that the Democrats should lie. Because those people are bigots, that’s why it matters if the candidate isn’t a white male. The fact that they don’t like to hear the truth doesn’t change it.
If you believe that running a Black or gay candidate is “feeding” the prejudice of a bigot, then I have nothing more to say in response to you.
Who is “the party” you’re speaking of? Democratic leaders in Congress? Democratic voters? The national committee? And who says “changing tactics would not lead to winning”?
I think what he means is more that running a black or gay candidate means a lower chance of winning, because it gives bigots a better target to aim at. Running a white straight male like Talarico makes it harder for bigots to get ammo.
I think what he means requires no translation.
I too long for a smart, competent, White, straight, cis, he/him Christian that doesn’t give the other side any ammunition to attack him with.
If only to update this,
‘Well, I think we may have lost the south for your lifetime – and mine.’ LBJ
to this,
‘Well, I think we may have lost the moderates for your lifetime – and mine.’
You can’t look at all the progress that was made in the 60s and the 70s, by Democrats, that’s currently being dismantled, or has already been dismantled, and continue to say ‘Those damned Democrats, if only they would do something to save us, from us…’
The presidential sample size is too small to be meaningful.
This is from the AFAIK reliable Political Parity NGO:
I’ve seen claims that somehow the presidency is different from all other elected offices. That is implausible to me. But it there was a difference, couldn’t it be that progressives will be more interested to vote for a minority and/or female for president than for lower offices?
The Barney Frank significance is that whomever the Democrats nominate in 2028 is liable to say something, especially after the political conventions, along Barney Frank lines, that will rub strongly pro-trans Democrats the wrong way. If the candidate is other than a while male, might they not get a greater chance for forgiveness from the base?
Of course I am not really arguing for an ethnic or gender test for office. I’m only saying how little it makes sense to avoid candidates based on race or gender (or religion).
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Thank you!
So, what you’re saying then is that it’s strategically wise to cater to bigots.
Can anyone in the class explain to bump why this is not a good idea?
(I’ll try, but I don’t know if I’ll do it well.)
One, this is an anxiety-driven assertion, not an evidence-driven one. You don’t KNOW that the electorate prefers white men in any given specific race, though you do know they prefer them in general because racism and sexism. But you can’t extrapolate from the general to the specific here.
Two, doing the wrong thing because you want to win is still doing the wrong thing. Let’s say you run a medical clinic, one of several in town, and you know some townspeople are racist. Would you refuse to hire Black staff because you suspected some customers would then patronize the all-white clinic across the street? That decision might make economic sense, but it would still be morally and ethically wrong (as well as illegal). You can’t just say “but it’s important!” and set your ethics aside.
I feel like there are better reasons than these two, but I’m hard pressed to articulate them.
Kamala Harris lost in an election where incumbents, or incumbent parties were losing all over the place. I wish the Democrats would stop beating themselves up over that. Liberal, conservative, didn’t matter – in Western democracies, incumbent parties took a bath due to inflation. If anything, the Dems outperformed in the House during that election.
Hilary Clinton, notably not a straight white male, won the popular vote, after two decades of hate from the Republicans and an October surprise from Comey.
God, this place is like a parody site, constantly talking about the Dems in disarray.
If the Dems start catering to bigots, as Barney Frank suggests, they may as well hang it up, because that really is a recipe for disaster. If you want to be a bigot, there’s already a party for you. I agree with others above (and Mamdani) – address any questions about transgender folks directly (something like, “I think all Americans deserve equal rights and respect”) and change the subject to the economy, inflation, whatever. Don’t get bogged down in minutiae of high school girls sports or whatever.
…I don’t think this works.
This is exactly what the Democrats are doing now. “Talking point, then pivot.”
So if they get asked “what do you think about school girls sports?”
They answer, “I think all Americans deserve equal rights and respect,” and then try to change the subject.
But what do they actually think about school girls’ sports? What’s the policy here?
This is exactly what they did in the last election on any controversial topic they wanted to avoid. And that’s what it looked like. They were hiding something. Which was true.
Mamdani and Polanski in the UK and Donald Trump all have the same thing in common. They don’t try and hide from the issues. They call it as they see it. They speak plainly.
And when the opposition has spent 200 million on anti-trans propaganda, the response shouldn’t be “I think all Americans deserve equal rights and respect…now how about the prices of bread?”
This isn’t “fighting back”. This is conceding ground. You can’t fight what is happening in sports if you stay silent on the issue. Because, as I said upthread you’ve got sports, you’ve got bathrooms and you’ve got healthcare. They are attacking all of them. But if sports falls…then they move to the next one on the list. So what will they say when it comes to bathrooms? Talk about the price of fish?