LBJ was an incumbent, in an era when party allegiances were shifting and the Democratic party was still dominant in many parts of the country. Plus, he was personally charismatic in ways that enabled him to personally push legislation through.
Here’s the thing- many of you are looking at this as if it’s more important to push certain social issues than to actually you know, get elected. I think that’s missing the forest for the trees. The other one is that you’re not looking at the country as a whole as to how the party should be focusing its messaging; the messaging should be focused intensely on that segment that is still not permanently decided for or against the GOP- toward those weird, incomprehensible people who still consider Trump and the GOP a viable option relative to what the Democratic party is selling. You’re not focusing your messaging on the GOP voters or anyone who’s already decided. Nor should you focus on people who don’t vote either. They’re not reliable enough to count on in terms of whether or not they’ll actually vote.
It’s bizarre and frankly kind of odious to have to pander to those wishy-washy types. But it’s what you’ve got to do- they’re the people who haven’t chosen sides and yet still vote.
On guns, Dems don’t have to ignore it, they can say “that’s not true, we don’t want to take your guns away.”
On trans in sports, Dems cannot say “we don’t want trans in sports.” They also can’t ignore it because that’s a surrender. I mean yes, they can respond with a generic “we support all LGBTQ+ people” but that’s not responsive to the specific question of trans in sports, and is (accurately) registered as a deflection that offends both sides for different reasons.
To be clear, that’s typically how Dems respond to wedges, by splitting the difference in ways that make everyone mad. So it’s an option, it’s just not one that seems to be working.
Yeah, as I said above some times that’s all you can answer, but you’re right, then the “pick a side” people will all be ticked off.
Big problem for a candidate of course is that in campaign messaging any position question quickly becomes defined as “all or nothing” and there’s no nuance and no room for partial credit. And “if you’re explaining you’re losing”.
Profoundly ignorant and completely wrong. Trans women have no more muscle mass than cis women. Widespread ignorance like this, lies like this, make our existence harder than it needs to be.
You wrote “man” there maliciously. Your words are poison.
Yeah I mean, that’s my point, that’s how wedges work and why they’re used. If they were easy to counter, nobody would use them. So there’s no simplistic answer.
Which won’t stop me from sharing my simplistic hypothetical response:
Q: Do you want more trans in sports?
A: That doesn’t worry me, and it shouldn’t worry you either. LGBT folks are good friends and neighbors. It’s just not a big deal.
Not perfect, but as good as it’s likely to get. Much better than “I don’t see how this helps with housing affordability” or “um next question” or the worst Dem response of all, “this is an important concern for many, and it can be regulated in a way that works for everyone.”
In the US, there was first Hawaii in the 90s for a little bit which was overturned by a constitutional amendment for about 15 years. By the time the Supreme Court made the ruling in 2015, most of the country had it, whether by rulings regarding state constitutions, federal decisions that were binding on full circuits, or actual legislation at the state level.
I was speaking of the history of American, not civil unions. The only reason that civil unions would have been agreed to in the US would be to have written anti-homosexual bigotry into law. Under no circumstances would they have been allowed to become equal, any more than that happened with the “separate but equal” options forced on black people. They would have been made as dysfunctional, useless and degrading as possible, because that was the entire point.
SSM and the fight against segregation also demonstrate an important point: getting civil rights requires a total lack of compromise with the Right. Because they are implacably hostile and intransigent, and accomplishing anything requires overriding or evading them. They will never compromise, except as far as they can use a poisoned “compromise” to undercut & sabotage their enemies (which is most people). With the eventual intent of eventually destroying their opponents and not having to compromise at all. It’s the people who refuse to compromise with the Right who actually get civil rights victories.
This isn’t about sports, this is about their ongoing campaign to persecute trans people. Their goal isn’t to reach some compromise, it’s the eventual destruction of the entire trans population. This is exactly like letting the Nazis ban Jews from sports because it’s not like sports is important and we can just deal with the issue later.
Can you walk us through what this means? Suppose Democratic candidate X gets the party nomination for whatever office… how do you want them to respond when asked about trans rights? Or specifically about trans access to athletics?
This question is for @Velocity too, if he’d like to answer.
The thing is, minority rights are not just “certain social issues.” They are human rights issues affecting real people in a way you maybe haven’t experienced.
It’s not Democrats that are picking this battle, it’s Republicans. Harris didn’t run on the promise to allow trans women in sports, but Trump ran on “She’s for they/them, we’re for you.”
I think you (and Barney Frank) should be directing this advice to Republicans: Why are you (the GOP) constantly harping on this extremely minor issue that affects a tiny percentage of athletes at a tiny percentage of schools when unemployment is X, inflation is Y, people are losing health insurance, etc., etc.
I’m sick to death of the smart people here constantly falling for this ridiculous wedge “issue” – it’s simply not an issue for almost anyone. The NCAA and IOC already have rules in place, and it really doesn’t matter at the high school level. This is a non-issue blown out of proportion by Republicans, amplified by “centrists”, who then complain that Democrats are making a big issue out of it.
The Republicans blow it out of proportion because it’s effective to do so. There are very few issues on which the public majority agrees more with the GOP than with the Dems. As such, the Republicans selectively focus on those few issues - in this case, trans athletes in women’s sports - and make a mountain out of a molehill. That’s not random, it’s totally logical strategy. When your (D) opponent is strong overall and has very few chinks in the armor or Achilles’ Heels, you go after those few.
If I were the candidate, I’d say “Trans people have the right to surgery, right to all kinds of things, except when they try to get into a field of sports in which they have an unfair physical advantage over cis-women - women who have a right to compete fairly against only competitors of the same physical type. Your rights end when they start to intrude on someone else’s rights.”
Then I would go back to hammering the issues on the economy, Trump-MAGA corruption and lunacy, climate change, income inequality, worker’s rights, etc. and make that close to 100% of my entire platform (but that’s getting off topic.)
So how do you know you’d gain any voters, or more importantly, gain more than the trans supporting voters you might lose?
IMO that’s handing the issue over to Republicans. They shouldn’t be given even a millimeter of rhetorical legitimacy, on this or really any issue.
Here’s my answer: “This is just typical media lies and bullshit - the same lies and bullshit that the billionaires and corporate interests, and their media tools, use to divide working people from each other so we won’t unite against the real powers, and the real enemy is of progress, of decency, and of the American people, those same billionaires and corporate interests who will trade away all rights, all decency, all quality of life just for the barest hints of more profit.”
So does Barney Frank, so do Democratic “centrists”, so do you, so does @bump. It’s a non-issue in real life, and there are so many threads here that discuss it.
It’s not off-topic, because your own proposal sabotages your stated goal. Abandoning trans people also means abandoning women’s rights, since persecuting trans people is used as an excuse to persecute women. Got to make sure none of them are “men pretending to be women” after all.
That’s how wedge issues work. Again, this isn’t about sports. This is about persecution.
What about those cis-women that have an unfair physical advantage over cis-women - women who have a right to compete fairly against only competitors of the same physical type.
Setting up new rules that create a right to compete fairly against only competitors of the same physical type isn’t about trans peple.
More to the point, what about cis women who naturally have elevated testosterone levels? Should olympic runner Caster Semenya have her medals stripped because she, by accident of birth, has high test levels?
I’m married to a trans woman. I don’t think her civil rights are a “stupid hill.”
I also do not trust people who are advocating sacrificing trans people’s rights to get a few extra votes in Ohio to stop with trans rights. The Democratic party has a long history of taking votes and money from queer people and stabbing us in the back once they’re in a position to write legislation, and I don’t think this faction has been remotely extinguished inside the party. The fact that we’re even having this discussion is evidence of that. If throwing trans people under the bus doesn’t work, who’s the next group that has to start checking their back for tire tracks?
Just in case this doesn’t click in your mind,
If conservatives don’t want transwomen to have unfair physical advantages because they went through male puberty, maybe conservatives should stop passing laws that prohibit minors from getting puberty blockers.