Not to speak for LHOD but: In political debate or when sparring with hostile media … one need not get painted into a corner by proclaiming “I don’t care about this.” Kuo’s sample response avoids this.
That’s fine. Is LHOD saying “let’s not talk about this because I give in, we do things as you want” or is LHOD saying “let’s not talk about this, and I expect you to stop complaining while we do things my way”?
He’s allowed to say either, but if he’s saying the former, he won’t be joined by many on his “side” of this argument; and if he’s saying the latter, why would he ever expect anyone to agree?
I disagree. I don’t recall this issue being memorably used in Trump’s 2016 or 2020 campaigns, for example, even though California had passed legislation on the matter in 2015.
Neither. It’s not necessary for the liberal to argue (better perhaps to say debate) the distracting matter (or Bogeyman) on the spot. You could repeat the spiel " You know, I see right through you, and so do the American people. …" multiple times as necessary. The Trumpian side of the argument doesn’t score points by insisting the liberal side “TAKE A STAND ON THIS MATTER RIGHT HERE AND NOW, DAMN YOU!”
You don’t recall trans issues being a thing in 2015-2016? That’s when the bathroom bills first happened. Trump initially opposed North Carolina’s bathroom bill, but came around to supporting it due to pressure from his base.
Yeah, that’s exactly what Kamala did when it came up for her during this last election cycle. Some of us aren’t too happy with the result, but I guess if you’re satisfied with how the 2024 election went, we can keep trying the same damn thing.
“Trans issues” is not the same thing, here, as “gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners”. YMMV.
Yes, I do recall the NC bathroom issue. Was raised up, then mysteriously vanished like so much smoke. I don’t recall it being particulary important to Trump’s 2016 or 2020 campaigns, but I could have missed something (e.g. spent time on the topic during debates against HRC and Biden? I don’t know).
I don’t recall this, either. Kuo is actually not suggesting a demure sidestep – he’s suggesting an aggressive, in-your-face tactic. I don’t recall Harris going there in that manner.
EDIT: I should add, for the purposes of this thread, we’re not trying to go back and figure out how Harris could’ve beaten Trump. We’re looking forward – what do Democrats need to do message-wise for 2026 and 2028? A lot of the difficulties with beating Trump vanish when Trump is not the candidate. And probably of a lesser impact, but whatever Harris’ deficiencies … they go away with a different candidate, too (acknowledging that the next candidate will have weak points of some kind).
Obviously neither of us have any influence over which path the Democrats end up taking.
But I’m just saying, if they decide to act like opposition to an issue that’s opposed by 70% of our own voters is entirely manufactured by Republicans, we WILL lose. IMHO.
It’s a subtle point, but that’s not what Kuo is talking about. It’s not “the issue” that is manufactured by the Republicans … it’s “the importance/relevance of the issue in the wider context of governing a nation”.
You can keep repeating that, but no, the importance of an issue can’t be manufactured by one side. If it’s truly not important, then Republicans would say NO TRANS PEOPLE IN SPORTS and you’d say “OK, that’s not really an important issue so I won’t fight you on that”.
You want to have it both ways. “I’m telling you it’s not an important issue, so I expect you to give up. Why won’t I give up? Well, because it’s important to me - err, I mean, LOOK! SOCIAL SECURITY!”
You don’t say “the issue is not important”. Calling out the cynicism of the Trumpian tactic in real time is not the same as saying “the issue is not important”.
By the way, @bordelond, @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness - I probably agree with you that this is not a very important issue for the governing of the country. That might change in a few years when my daughters are old enough to play sports, but for now, it’s a pretty distant issue to me.
But to millions of Americans, including many Democrats, it clearly is an issue that they care deeply about. And speaking down to them, lecturing them about why they shouldn’t care? It’s not gonna fucking work, man. That’s been the Democratic party’s brand since 2016 at least, and it’s fucking toxic.
The fact that the Democrats can get caught in quicksand from an obvious question like “Do you support gender reassignment surgery for prisoners?” is not a good sign. That kind of question shouldn’t catch someone off guard. If they can’t confidently answer a question like that in a way that satisfies the voters they are trying to reach, then it shows a great lack of skill in the political space. Either answer it directly or don’t answer it, but the answer should be such that the people you want voting for you are more likely to give you their vote. The strategy of dodging the question I don’t think works very well.
So when 70% of Democrats say that trans women shouldn’t play women’s sports without restriction, and Democratic politicians say “THIS IS A DISTRACTION, STOP TALKING ABOUT IT and also we will keep doing what only 30% of you support, shhhh” - why do you expect people to turn out for representatives who clearly don’t represent them?
It’s always this option. And the disingenuousness isn’t helping the Dem’s image problem.
The Dems have become the party of conspicuous virtue, finger-wagging moralism, and defending the establishment - at least in the public perception. They now have the war hawks and the free traders. Someone said in an older thread that they are now the conservative party, and in some ways it’s true. It’s not surprising they are losing support from young men, and being attacked by the only successful lefty podcasters.
Should they lean into this change, or try to move away from it?
Seems to me the issue for the Dems was mostly the headline figures of border crossings, plus videos and news stories of cities struggling to cope with the influx of illegal immigrants. They needed a snappy soundbite answer for this, and I’m not sure there was one.
We’re talking past each other. You’ve reframed Kuo’s suggest counter several times – I continue to contend that you are not accurately representing the suggested tactic.
The problem is that the voters they are trying to reach have very different opinions on this issue, and that’s an uncomfortable conversation to have. And Democrats tolerate very little dissent; if you agree with Newsom but disagree with him on trans athletes, you don’t mostly agree with Newsom - you think he’s a fascist monster who threw a vulnerable community under the bus for power.
I saw a meme about the 2028 election, and I really hope it doesn’t turn out to be prophetic. The meme depicted the 2028 election, with Newsom running against Trump (who is going for a third term). A group of Progressive voters are saying:
"On the one hand, Newsom will end the wars in Greenland, Canada, and Mexico; he’ll bring back NATO and end tariffs.
On the other, he threw America’s twelve trans athletes under the bus.
So, I’m voting for Jill Stein."
Ok, so explain it better. What am I getting wrong?
70% of Democratic voters say they don’t support trans women in women’s sports.
The Democrats respond by saying “we see through you, Trump! You’re just trying to divide us by going after vulnerable groups!”
While they’re saying this, are Democrats:
- giving ground and allowing restrictions to be placed on trans women’s participation in sports in states like California
- continuing to maintain their current, deeply unpopular position
Not what’s being suggested.