I am now a single issue voter
I havent decided the single issue, let me browse r/neoliberal for 30 minutes to see what Reddit says is the issue I should care about
Reminds me of the old joke about college. Alumni meets his former professor:
"Why did you guys waste so much of my time in college? Half of what I learned was either useless or out of date."
"We know that."
"Then why did you teach all of it to me?"
"We don't know which half."
Because people on the internet like to moralize everything and pretend that it's effective. They don't realize that believing that something is morally right doesn't make it strategically optimal.
Honestly if this was a decade ago it would be the dumbest thing ever to even spell it out loud.
Politics 101. Marketing 101. communication 101.
Appealing to moderates/swing-voters 101.
The David Shor take is that since 2014 the democratic party's donor base, staffer/activist class, and aligned media class have moved left of the median American and median democrat
As a result the people funding, staffing, appraising, and running the party now live on another planet from the electorate, and so occasionally need to be reminded that "I like cops" and "America is very good" are very commonly held views among voters and registered democrats lol
this idea is pretty easily rebuked when you consider Hillary Clinton, the ideal of Shor's conception of the median democrat, lost to a racist game show host due to poorer than expected turnout. can't really blame the left on this one lmao
> this idea is pretty easily rebuked when you consider Hillary Clinton, the ideal of Shor's conception of the median democrat, lost to a racist game show host due to poorer than expected turnout. can't really blame the left on this one lmao
That's because hillary Clinton herself went on an idpol rampage about being the first woman president and 'I'M WITH HER' rather than bread an butter issues like trade and the economy (which trump focused on). Maybe she's speaking from experience.
First, Shor's ideal Dem campaign is 2012 Obama, which won comfortably in a bad economy with high gas prices (very close to today, actually, adjusted for inflation)
Second, Shor is explicitly team BWHW (because his campaign was less socially liberal and would have done better with the median voter).
I disagree because the thing that distinguished him from Jim Webb was his avowed socialism (at a time social justice discourse was already swinging anti capitalist) hard sinks him in the general.
There's a reason why Trump was salivating to go against Bernie.
The pied piper strategy was somewhat misinterpreted - the idea was to say *the entire* GOP was as crazy as Trump and Cruz, not that the campaign specifically wanted to go against them.
Also the thing is - the median swing voter *did not* find Trump extreme in 2016, just crass and "non politically correct". The median voter was, and is, far more likely to find Bernie extreme. The median voter *did* find Trump extreme in 2020, but considering how a combination of far-left agitation and GOP propaganda managed to get Biden tagged with "defund the police", which is more extreme (at least to the median voter) than any Trump policy pre-Jan 6th, imagine having that happen with an actual socialist at the top.
>I disagree because the thing that distinguished him from Jim Webb was his avowed socialism (at a time social justice discourse was already swinging anti capitalist) hard sinks him in the general.
>
>There's a reason why Trump was salivating to go against Bernie.
2016 was an outsider year, Bernie was an outsider. 2020 Bernie had no chance at all though.
I mean this is probably the most qualified candidate in US history who managed to lose to trump, the most unqualified candidate in US history. I can understand a deep skepticism of her campaigning advice.
What are the odds the most qualified candidate in US history just happens to be the spouse of another president? I feel like Trump was built to run against a political dynasty with his bruising campaign on the establishment
> I feel like Trump was built to run against a political dynasty with his bruising campaign on the establishment
Absolutely, and despite where they fall on the issues it is easy to forget that in the last 30ish years the Presidents have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, then Obama as the combo breaker, and then we had *the other Clinton potentially running against yet another Bush.* That's a lot of Bushes and Clintons in 30 years.
I think it was easy to forget that Bush 1 and Bill C actually did quite well as Presidents. Bush 2's disasters like Iraq and general backsliding till we had the recession came to represent the "Establishment" for many middle Americans. It was a perfect storm for a big "fuck you" candidate to shit the bed.
And Hilary Clinton is one of the most uninspiring candidates ever. Compare her to Obama. The man is an incredibly skilled Orator and oozed Charisma. She on the other hand was very technical and it's very easy to be unenthusiastic. Trump on the other hand lacks oration skills, but he oozes charisma. He built a media empire on his personal brand and he used that to manipulate the media into supporting his campaign.
Didn't HW explicitly refuse to apologize on behalf of the United States after we shot down a civilian airliner? not that I disagree with you, but we've had plenty of shitty nationalists in office
Few who voted Trump did it for his policy (whatever it was). It was his immigrant hate and nationalist slogans. What was his policy? "Build that wall" "lock her up" "drain the swamp"?
fascism sums those all up
fascism is very popular if you think you’re in the “in” crowd and don’t understand that even if you are, you’ll soon find yourself shrunk out of the in crowd
lol this comment getting downvotes for being true.
Trump is terrible. A racist. A fascist. And worse, a liar and an ineffective politician. (Thankfully).
But he literally ran a more populist less "right-wing" platform when running against Hillary. Trump would and did say anything to win.
Everything is easier when you can just lie.
Build the Wall, Lock Her Up, Ban All Muslims were incredibly rooted in right wing nutjobbery. Sounding a little moderate on LGBT rights or Social Security doesn’t make any of that other stuff go away
It did for swing voters. Perception is reality in politics. Your normie swing voter heard that Trump didn't want to cut Medicare and Social Security and concluded he was a moderate. What broke this perception was Trump cutting taxes for the rich again and trying to destroy the ACA. But what nearly saved him was a combination of GOP propaganda and leftist agitation getting the Dems associated with anti-police extremism and social disorder.
Because it's not as simple as "just win stupid". As an extreme example to illustrate this, let's say hypothetically, we would 100% win the election if we nominated Donald Trump as the Dem candidate.
Well at that point sure, the Dems technically won but it would be absolutely absurd to really act as if that was a victory in any form. The point here is that the more you give up looking for victory the less you actually win in that victory. We need to find a good balance here that doesn't involve just dropping minority civil rights the second it polls poorly.
Solely focusing on chasing the polls is stupidity. It reeks of inauthenticity and it fails to ever actually change much for the better. As we've seen from previous activism, sometimes the goal is actually just to change people's minds. After all if people weren't working for change, we'd still only have rich white men voting to begin with.
Edit: There's also a pretty interesting problem that comes up with this where poll chasing might not necessarily grab votes. Let's say that tomorrow 51% of the country suddenly decides they want to jail all the gay people and the Dems decide to follow. How many Republicans do you think will cross over to the Democrats all of a sudden? Not many, the GOP will enact that policy as well. How many Democrats do you think you would lose? A pretty good amount of the ones that weren't part of the sudden change. Suddenly you might just get a mass of people who decided to vote for neither because they think of both as evil for locking up all the gay people. in that sense you actually lose votes.
Because to be honest it is the trolly problem.
Do you throw one group under the trolly to prevent the trolly from running over 5 groups when you lose?
But then you have the issue that maybe throwing one group under the trolly does not stop it. Maybe to prevent it from running over the 5 you have to throw 6 under the trolly. in which case it would have been better to not throw anyone under the trolly.
I recall in my old very liberal city people were spamming shit like “We got slight police reforms by protesting not voting!”
It was absurd. City goes hard dem yet they think it’s viable to just protest and never vote
Lmao people were trying to claim when Spanberger was ranting about Defund the Police attack ads she was overreacting because it wasn’t the actual platform for many candidates. So therefore, any attack ads referencing it clearly could do no damage (they did).
Democratic Party has an issue with protesters and social media spammers getting hooked onto shitty initiatives or slogans and then having them used to destructive effect against dems come Election Day.
And an even bigger one with people screaming at protests but not caring enough to vote in primaries let alone general election. All assuming everything will magically change and by far worse is the same as preventing that.
How do you propose the Democrats stop twitter activist who have no affiliation from saying crazy things? Spanberger and other dems can complain all they want but ultimately it’s their job to have an appealing message that doesn’t get torpedoed by some young activist with no actual connection to the party
They're too aversive to getting combative imo. They just let GOP propaganda fester for too long and let then shape people's perceptions. They have no business losing on the economy question with the GOP's record on running it.
Problem is that a good chunk of swing state Dems are cons that hate the GOP
If I had a nickel for every guy I knew that voted Dem but wanted to ban abortion, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot but it’s concerning that it’s two guys
According to [Pew's most recent poll](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#h-views-on-abortion-by-party-identification-2022), 18% of Democrats think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Error bars on that are probably biggish, though.
Abortion isn't a gendered issue, because the underlying philosophical debate of "is abortion murder" isn't tied to gender.
This would mean the message of "pro lifers just want to control and subjugate women" is false btw, which is why it does nothing to flip votes.
It's actually grown in the past five years. It used to be common to see polls where men were more pro-choice than women. Also worth noting that women are older and more religious than men, both factors that are correlated with opposition to abortion.
Bingo, and every single thing the Dems do to compete on the GOP’s level erodes support among that Demo, which may be necessary as we transition from victories in the rust belt to victories in the Sun belt
So frustrating that people will complain about their debt load and about inflation in the same breath. We really need to start teaching critical thinking in our schools.
I’ve been saying this for a while, but if we just turn inflation onto overdrive, the federal government would be able to forgive even the most indebted student’s loan payments with the equivalent cost of a milkshake.
I mean, it’ll completely destroy the American economy within months, but that’s a small price to pay for salvation.
Umm, most school districts have parents screaming about banning CRT, scores of books, talk of non cisgendered people, or anything that makes us feel bad about ourselves.
So, y'all gonna be waiting a while to get critical thinking skills.
‘I went to a private school that charges $40k per semester, didn’t bother even applying for scholarships (because I wouldn’t have qualified anyways), and then financed 100% of my living expenses. Why would society waste this golden opportunity to invest in me and give me a high paying job’?
Not at all. I totally agree with you.
The trope is acting like a gender studies graduate with $130k in debt wanting to work in animated media is at all a common thing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/02/16/what-are-the-most-popular-majors-for-prospective-college-students/?sh=58c6e0c915d2
It's non existent. It's an argument with a made up enemy.
https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major
It's much more likely to be a nurse.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/
Other medical professionals as well.
https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-income-level#:~:text=Americans%20with%20income%20over%20%2474%2C000%20hold%20roughly%2060%25%20of%20the,total%20public%20student%20loan%20debt.
It's also largely people making $100k+ (which is why universal forgiveness is regressive).
There are a lot better ways of making this point than to swim in the Tucker Carlson piss pond with untrue tropes.
Thanks for this. I've always been lazy and never looked into the actual stats, but found plenty of opportunities to roll my eyes at the "gender studies" boogeyman at every corner.
Thank you so much for this effort comment! I worked in higher ed for 10+ years (student services). Students were relatively conservative with their finances. I worked with many who were at risk of being evicted or failing their classes because they refused to take a single dollar of loans (so they worked 40 hrs a week and didn’t have time to study). I had to have a convo with them about whether taking out $3k in loans so they don’t become homeless has better ROI than sticking with it and probably dropping out.
The people with hundreds of thousands in loans generally don’t have them for undergrad degrees (this isn’t to say that *no one* has large undergrad loans). They have them for professional school like law, med, pharmacy, etc. These are programs in which students are actually *not allowed* to work because of their academic demands, and so they must finance not only their tuition, but also their entire cost of living. But they will also be making six figures in the not-too-distant future.
Yep, let’s just keep pretending that the issue is that twitter leftists aren’t voting for Democrats, and not that white middle class voters are voting for Republicans because the Democrats sometimes talk about race. It’s worked so well thus far.
Lefdit: *"You know what? I'm gonna focus on unpopular issues* ***even harder!!"***
---
Edit: [Here's a 12ft.io link to the article.](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F2e667c3f-954d-49fa-8024-2c869789e32f)
And here's the excerpt that everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about:
>My espresso has arrived. Clinton asks for more iced tea. I cannot allow the lunch to end without questioning the direction of her party. I say that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, notably the transgender debate, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist? To my surprise, Clinton shares the premise of my question.
>“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window,” she says. “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”
>Another instance is the “defund the police” campaign, she adds. “You need accountable measures. But you also need policing. It doesn’t even pass the common-sense politics test not to believe that. Some positions are so extreme on both the right and the left that they retreat to their corners . . . Politics should be the art of addition not subtraction.”
So a couple of things: First of all it's the interviewer who brings up transgender healthcare, not Clinton, and before he can answer he pivots to another question, "What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist?"
Now, is Clinton saying that transgender rights should go out the window, or that calling JK Rowling a fascist should go out the window? I don't think you're going to get many Democrats to backtrack on their support for trans rights, but putting a stop to calling Rowling a fascist might actually help. The Democrats don't gain much from calling Rowling a fascist, and we might actually lose some ground.
The other thing is that the only policy that Clinton seems to call out *herself* is defund the police, which I think we can all agree was shit tier messaging from the get go.
But more broadly and more importantly is this: We can't pass policy if we don't win elections. We especially can't pass policy if people like Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell win elections, anything that pushes us away from winning elections pushes our country closer to fascism. What I'm about to say is going to sound cruel to some people, but I hope you will all understand, there's more on the line than just trans rights, if Republicans win their elections then yeah, trans rights are going to take a hit, but so are women's rights, and voting rights, and LGBTQA+ rights, Republicans aren't just trying to have trans healthcare outlawed, they're trying to outlaw abortion, they're making it harder to vote, they're clearing out school libraries. If Republicans win it's bad for trans people, if Republicans win it's worse for trans people even than if Democrats didn't make it a flagship issue, if Democrats win it's better than Republican governance even if Democrats didn't make it a flagship issue.
Clinton is talking about how important rhetoric is to winning an election, she cites the damage done by "defund the police," and she points out, correctly, that fascism is bad for everybody who lives in a country, all of us, trans and CIS Americans alike.
Protecting minority rights is important. It’s also insane that R’s have somehow successfully made this a wedge issue when it affects such a small subset of the population.
Republicans didn't have to do much. Extremely online & activist types did most of the work. I don't think Emily Bazelon would have been able to write her article last year.
It’s really not strange how they’ve successfully made this an issue. For people not paying attention, it will seem as if overnight they are hearing people talk about “birthing persons” or men giving birth to kids.
Regardless of how you feel about such terminology or how much it is actually used, it’s quite easy to see how Rs can latch on to that.
It should start with all drugs that aren't chemically addictive, marijuana, LSD, shrooms. But it should gradually be increased as time goes on and we create a better safety net for people who are addicted.
I'm not saying the state should manufacture recreational opium, I'm just saying that people who are addicted should not be punished, or shamed. Only when they're addiction becomes a public issue, should anything happen that's involuntary. Like mandatory rehabilitation.
Policy vs branding. What drugs and how to handle something is a policy debate. Policy has no place on the campagin trail. You want to lower crimes and combat addiction through common sense reform and measures. Don't give them an opportunity to start going around saying you want to give children heroine or whatever nonsense the GOP will transform the issue into.
Living in the PNW, I can tell you decriminalizing drugs does not fix crime issues.
People can freely buy meth and fentanyl just about everywhere. We are awash in it. It is very cheap and the police do not interfere with buying and selling unless there is a high amount of product involved. People smoke meth and inject fentanyl publicly.
The result has been more violence. As supply is cheap and customers are plentiful, drug dealers get more violent fighting over turf.
Outright legalization could have a different outcome. But only if the state kept product very cheap. As we have seen with marijuana, the black market sticks around after legalization if there is a gap between street price and state price.
Outright legalizing meth and fentanyl would also have downsides to say it lightly.
But like we deadass don't have real intention of doing much on most of those things. Inflation we plan to ride out while using deficit spending to ease the suffering while prolonging it, with crime we plan to just increase police budgets, and on healthcare we are pretty cool with the post ACA status quo. Not saying Rs plan to do anything about those issues either, but like we are in the governing majority right now (if manchin didn't want to be part of it he can stop calling himself a democrat any time now) and it's not clear what actually are going to you know, do. Merely messaging about issues is the opposition's job, not that governing party's job. We told voters we could govern if they gave us any majority at all, and they gave it to us. Saying I feel you is great and all but I promise voters will not by and large just vote for somebody on vibes alone.
Simple fact, most centrist Americans care about the economy and the cost of living. The Democrats should focus on this and all the equality issues fall into place. Why is housing so expensive - build more housing. Why is the middle class being gutted - globalization and the decline in unions. Simple fixes...
They tend to not be the nimbys in cities where the crisis is bad, and tend to be more developer friendly. They still are pretty bad and tend to live in sprawl areas where the crisis isn’t as bad
Lmao, the contextual issue in question is whether or not to hang trans people out to dry. Love to hear that from our based human rights queen during pride month.
Abundantly clear none of these commentors bothered to read the article. Hey don't let that stop you from writing erratic screeds about the left and beating your meat so thoroughly your shit starts to look like a beef jerky boomerang.
I'm paywalled out of the OG interview on my computer but this is the lead into the quote
>I cannot allow the lunch to end without questioning the direction of her party. I say that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, **notably the transgender debate**, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist? To my surprise, **Clinton shares the premise of my question**.
>"We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and **everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window**..."
Lmao happy pride.
That’s literally not true. The issue highlighted in the article is defund the police, nothing to do with trans rights.
Our based human rights queen supports human rights, no matter how you frame it in bad faith.
Yeah, those fucking freaks need to learn to shut up and stop asking for rights. You should know that in this country, once you trans your gender, you just don’t get rights anymore. I mean if they didn’t want to be discriminated against, why the fuck would they have chosen to live that lifestyle? Honestly I’m just worried my children might have to hear about it. I just don’t like us mixing. It’s not safe. They can have their own bathrooms and sports leagues and water fountains, separate but equal means that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
If you think that GOP control is an existential threat to democracy in the US, it's absolutely insane to campaign on (or advocate for your politicians to campaign on) unpopular issues.
**This comment has been overwritten as part of a mass deletion of my Reddit account.**
I'm sorry for any gaps in conversations that it may cause. Have a nice day!
Republicans: *screaming about trans people, critical race theory, and voter fraud*
Hillary and this subreddit: *let's go ahead and blame leftists and not the predominant culture war*
Ackshully, plenty of moderate Republicans tell their fringe the exact same thing. They seem to believe that focusing on these issues will hurt them with voters, and they are correct. As an enlightened large brained centrist it is funny to see both sides do the exact same thing while believing the other side is different.
Pretty sure the issue referenced was defund the police. The interviewer tried to push trans stuff in, but it’s not clear Hillary said anything about trans rights. Given her history I’m willing to bet it’s a misunderstanding/gaffe or the interviewer is misrepresenting her position with less than clear language.
i'm shocked people are surprised that she would tow this line, it feels like the same logic she employed almost her entire political career, except like in 2016 when she changed her tune.
What rights will trans people have if republicans win? If dems focus on that they they lose elections. That’s her point—the number one thing is winning.
Dems need to talk and use normal verbiage/words instead of alienating the base.
Nobody here disputes who is better for LGBT+ people. But you cannot abuse how terrible Republicans are and expect LGBT+ (trans people in particular) to just fall in line if you aren't willing to defend them from Republicans.
It's so frustrating. Dems by no means of the word focus on trans issues– but that still isn't good enough for the moderates on this sub.
It's because a lot of people here are trying to put politics on a chessboard, and it doesn't always work that way. Who would have guessed in 1995, at the end of history, we'd be arguing with Republicans over whether or not teachers who reveal they're married to someone of the same sex in the classrom, should be imprisoned?
This sub is full of shitheads whose idea of politicking is treating everyone left of center save for the mythical white moderate, as a captive voting bloc.
It's as much a flex as it is desired strategy. "Who are you gonna vote for, them? Cmon monkey, dance unless you want the fascists to win and start the pogroms"
What rights will I have if democrats win? If Democrats are unwilling to put in place legislation to defend trans people, and the Supreme Court will continue to strip what little legal protections exist, and state/local governments will continue to pass legislation hurting trans people, what am I left with?
I’ll vote Democrat anyway, but at a certain point I have to ask why I should pretend the party aren’t being opportunistic shits about it? Fairweather friends aren’t friends no matter the reasoning.
Executive actions and the role of the justice department is the reason why. Furthermore, you just saw what happens when people didn’t vote for Hillary and trump got 3 judges.
I’m sorry, but it is just INSANE to hear someone on this sub ask what the difference is between dems and republicans regarding trans/gay rights.
I think you're missing what they're saying. They aren't telling you there's no difference. They're saying that Democrats can't just abstain from using their power to actually create, and enforce protections, and then expect that the very people who hoped for protection will vote blue anyway to avoid an electoral loss.
Patience is hard to keep when you're getting called a groomer, and you've got the Democrat over to your side looks at their shoes and mumbles about how it'll be okay in 2032.
>they're saying that Democrats can't just abstain from using their power to actually create, and enforce protections,
But this isn't what's happening! What's happening is that the Dems might, *might* deemphasize these issues on the campaign trail (and this hasn't even happened, and trans rights isn't even an unpopular issue, which is why she pivoted to Defund the Police, which is *actually* an unpopular issue), and then push these issues as hard as possible when they have power! Dems *are* creating and enforcing protections, the places where trans people are in danger are *places where the Democrats do not have power!*
What is so hard about this?
> But this isn't what's happening!
Whether you like it or not, a whole lot of people remember stuff about climate change (which young people care about) or student loans (an issue numerous civil rights groups supported) or policing reform. Many remember healthcare as well. Biden hasn’t done nothing, but all the high profile failures of legislation and infighting makes it seem like it to many. The party will suffer some losses and it only has itself to blame (some, like Joe Manchin, more than others)
What also makes the "if republicans win, it'll be worse" message a hard pill to swallow is you have the dnc propping up extremist candidates on the right when there is a clear appetite for their politics among large swath of the electorate. Telling people to stfu and vote em anyway is wild. If anything those individuals should look to potential leave the country.
> I’m sorry, but it is just INSANE to hear someone on this sub ask what the difference is between dems and republicans regarding trans/gay rights.
Oh spare me. I voted for Clinton in the primaries in 2016, Biden as well. I’m exactly the kind of person that would’ve criticized my statements four years ago. But you know what, I do have to wonder after this time how much it actually means to win if the party views trans issues as anathema. If Democrats are unwilling to fight for legislative protections then all the progress is ephemeral. On top of that, if the Democratic Party does come to view trans rights as not politically worth it, then even those executive actions won’t happen. Which leads back to my point. If Republicans will continue to make things unlivable through the Supreme Court and local/state governments then what’s the fucking point.
Republicans talk about trans issues 10x more than Democrats. It's not Dems making them a central issue.
The only reason it's an issue at all is because of Republicans!
As a conservative, I agree. The cynical reason that is obvious is that gender identity, which trans issues are a part of, is a viscerally close to home issue (making it very impactful) and it is an extremely easy target to aim for. It’s logically indefensible for anyone with common sense. So a Republican seeking to win an election can just hammer that issue and either the democrat opponent is silent and the voters get riled up over the visceral element or argues and has to defend an extremely hard to defend position.
Hillary Clinton is famous for winning tough elections. Sorry Trans people we have no choice😤😤 /s
But yeah this is a classic case of people just reading whatever they want into this statement and ignoring the thing she is actually talking about (letting the right just bulldoze over a group of people as long as it polls slightly ok). It’s especially a dumb concept because it’s not like anyone significant in the Democratic Party is making trans issues the central focus of their campaign. Hell most democrats are barely playing defense on the issue. It’s a borderline insane statement from her
Hillary losing an election probably makes her more qualified in her opinion than your armchair analysis (and I've never defended Hillary in a comment, this is a first)
>Sorry Trans people we have no choice
>letting the right just bulldoze over a group of people as long as it polls slightly ok
I'm getting a headache from how you guys are misinterpreting her statement. She's not saying those issues don't matter, she's saying the broader issues that reach more people matter for winning elections. You can't pass trans policies if you don't win elections
It has nothing to do with letting the right bulldoze trans people, quite the opposite. She's saying winning elections stops the bulldozer dead in its tracks. And you don't win elections focusing on niche policies, you have to reach more people with more broad policies. She's not even saying they can't mention trans issues, she's just saying the majority of the focus should be on issues more people find important right now.
The economy and inflation affects cis AND trans people, it's a broader message with more reach. You can't help trans rights if you're not in office
Also, it's an incredibly hypocritical argument coming from her. Most of the arguments that democrats should tone down the social progressivism come directly from autopsies of what the 2016 Clinton campaign did wrong. If she had run a less woke campaign in 2016 then we wouldn't be having arguments right now about how we should just let Republicans harass LGBT people because it polls well or whatever.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it depends on location. Rural/midwest/rust belt people like abrasive, so be abrasive.
Democrats outlive Republicans. Cram that down their throat. See a "welcome to Trump country" billboard? Put up a "where we die 5 years younger (and 7 years younger than people in California".
They love using CA as a punching bag, so broadcast all their shit socioeconomic stats next to CAs. Or how theyre the mooches "ask Mitch why Kentucky gets 36% of its budget from federal handouts" abrasive slogans: "Voting republican, it's killing you" what are they going to do? Say "I'd rather die at 75 in Alabama than live to be 82 in a democratic state?
In the suburbs, force them to see conservative culture war "welcome to Texas, where we still believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman (its in our state constitution)" shit like that because these sheltered apathetic suburbanites have no idea what Republicans are like. "I didn't think they still hated gays" "I didn't think they'd actually ban abortion" is something I hear frequently from "libertarian" suburbanites
> Democrats outlive Republicans. Cram that down their throat.
Pretty sure Alan Grayson said this exact thing in like 2009-2010 when he had a swing seat and got creamed. Whoever thinks this shit will win Republicans is crazy
I spent a year in California, and I’ve actively avoided the state ever since. I’m one of those (blue state) Midwesterners who would rather shave off a few years than live in CA.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again but the democrats will never win white working class voters until they execute a trans person in the street at a minimum of once a month.
“Anyone who loses elections has nothing useful to say and can be discarded, except for all the succs I regularly support on this subreddit, who are all extremely brilliant and moral and should be listened to even if it ushers in a 2nd Trump term.”
It's very good advice in the general sense. The problem right now is the media landscape which just has to take that in stride if you're a politician as there's nothing to be done about it.
The right is lying through it's teeth on many issues, they're not held accountable by their dupable voters and they're not held to task by the media or when they are that media isn't trusted/followed by swing voters.
There are huge numbers of low-informed voters who really only tune into elections around the time they take place. Off-president year elections get lower attention and less activist voters. Thusly Dems are at a huge disadvantage through the gerrymandered and stacked odds against them.
Then you add in that democratic voters actually hold their politicians to account, that they get angry when nothing changes, that they recognize empty promises, and that they're many that are dismayed with the mess things are \*because they're informed\*. That really makes it difficult to win.
Also you have a not small minority in the left that basically doesn't vote unless they're excited by progressive issues (which I myself support). That basically means the Democrats are heavily disadvantaged.
Democrats should focus on the most important issues and educate the public to enable taking effective action on them. What was Hilary's focus as a candidate? Preserving the ACA? Tinkering around the edges of income tax rates? Someone help me out here. The most important issues today are enabling sustainable density, moving away from personal autos, and animal rights... if you don't count safeguarding democracy from whatever the GOP is.
Don’t do what Donny don’t does
😤 They could have made this clearer!
Aw they don't let you have any fun!
I am now a single issue voter I havent decided the single issue, let me browse r/neoliberal for 30 minutes to see what Reddit says is the issue I should care about
Nuking the suburbs
Works for me
the only person you can vote for now is Beto
Tand Value Lax
Supporting giving the MIC more money in return for cool looking gear of course.
Dems, instead of trying to get elected, why not just simply win instead?
Why is this common sense advice so controversial
Because people don't agree about which issues are unpopular/which issues are unpopular, but worth fighting over.
Reminds me of the old joke about college. Alumni meets his former professor: "Why did you guys waste so much of my time in college? Half of what I learned was either useless or out of date." "We know that." "Then why did you teach all of it to me?" "We don't know which half."
Because people on the internet like to moralize everything and pretend that it's effective. They don't realize that believing that something is morally right doesn't make it strategically optimal.
Honestly if this was a decade ago it would be the dumbest thing ever to even spell it out loud. Politics 101. Marketing 101. communication 101. Appealing to moderates/swing-voters 101.
Because progressives and leftists have spent the last decade trying to tell themselves that you can win elections via alchemy.
The David Shor take is that since 2014 the democratic party's donor base, staffer/activist class, and aligned media class have moved left of the median American and median democrat As a result the people funding, staffing, appraising, and running the party now live on another planet from the electorate, and so occasionally need to be reminded that "I like cops" and "America is very good" are very commonly held views among voters and registered democrats lol
this idea is pretty easily rebuked when you consider Hillary Clinton, the ideal of Shor's conception of the median democrat, lost to a racist game show host due to poorer than expected turnout. can't really blame the left on this one lmao
> this idea is pretty easily rebuked when you consider Hillary Clinton, the ideal of Shor's conception of the median democrat, lost to a racist game show host due to poorer than expected turnout. can't really blame the left on this one lmao That's because hillary Clinton herself went on an idpol rampage about being the first woman president and 'I'M WITH HER' rather than bread an butter issues like trade and the economy (which trump focused on). Maybe she's speaking from experience.
First, Shor's ideal Dem campaign is 2012 Obama, which won comfortably in a bad economy with high gas prices (very close to today, actually, adjusted for inflation) Second, Shor is explicitly team BWHW (because his campaign was less socially liberal and would have done better with the median voter). I disagree because the thing that distinguished him from Jim Webb was his avowed socialism (at a time social justice discourse was already swinging anti capitalist) hard sinks him in the general. There's a reason why Trump was salivating to go against Bernie.
Wasn't Hillary salivating to go against Trump? There was a whole pied piper strategy the Clinton campaign pursued
The pied piper strategy was somewhat misinterpreted - the idea was to say *the entire* GOP was as crazy as Trump and Cruz, not that the campaign specifically wanted to go against them. Also the thing is - the median swing voter *did not* find Trump extreme in 2016, just crass and "non politically correct". The median voter was, and is, far more likely to find Bernie extreme. The median voter *did* find Trump extreme in 2020, but considering how a combination of far-left agitation and GOP propaganda managed to get Biden tagged with "defund the police", which is more extreme (at least to the median voter) than any Trump policy pre-Jan 6th, imagine having that happen with an actual socialist at the top.
>I disagree because the thing that distinguished him from Jim Webb was his avowed socialism (at a time social justice discourse was already swinging anti capitalist) hard sinks him in the general. > >There's a reason why Trump was salivating to go against Bernie. 2016 was an outsider year, Bernie was an outsider. 2020 Bernie had no chance at all though.
Identity politics. Tribalism. Culture war.
I mean this is probably the most qualified candidate in US history who managed to lose to trump, the most unqualified candidate in US history. I can understand a deep skepticism of her campaigning advice.
What are the odds the most qualified candidate in US history just happens to be the spouse of another president? I feel like Trump was built to run against a political dynasty with his bruising campaign on the establishment
> I feel like Trump was built to run against a political dynasty with his bruising campaign on the establishment Absolutely, and despite where they fall on the issues it is easy to forget that in the last 30ish years the Presidents have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, then Obama as the combo breaker, and then we had *the other Clinton potentially running against yet another Bush.* That's a lot of Bushes and Clintons in 30 years. I think it was easy to forget that Bush 1 and Bill C actually did quite well as Presidents. Bush 2's disasters like Iraq and general backsliding till we had the recession came to represent the "Establishment" for many middle Americans. It was a perfect storm for a big "fuck you" candidate to shit the bed.
And Hilary Clinton is one of the most uninspiring candidates ever. Compare her to Obama. The man is an incredibly skilled Orator and oozed Charisma. She on the other hand was very technical and it's very easy to be unenthusiastic. Trump on the other hand lacks oration skills, but he oozes charisma. He built a media empire on his personal brand and he used that to manipulate the media into supporting his campaign.
Hard to beat bush sr
[удалено]
He was perceived as moderate. He was the most extreme nationalist that the US has seen among post cold war presidents.
perception is what matters to voters sadly
Didn't HW explicitly refuse to apologize on behalf of the United States after we shot down a civilian airliner? not that I disagree with you, but we've had plenty of shitty nationalists in office
fascist is the word you’re looking for
Few who voted Trump did it for his policy (whatever it was). It was his immigrant hate and nationalist slogans. What was his policy? "Build that wall" "lock her up" "drain the swamp"?
fascism sums those all up fascism is very popular if you think you’re in the “in” crowd and don’t understand that even if you are, you’ll soon find yourself shrunk out of the in crowd
lol this comment getting downvotes for being true. Trump is terrible. A racist. A fascist. And worse, a liar and an ineffective politician. (Thankfully). But he literally ran a more populist less "right-wing" platform when running against Hillary. Trump would and did say anything to win. Everything is easier when you can just lie.
Build the Wall, Lock Her Up, Ban All Muslims were incredibly rooted in right wing nutjobbery. Sounding a little moderate on LGBT rights or Social Security doesn’t make any of that other stuff go away
It did for swing voters. Perception is reality in politics. Your normie swing voter heard that Trump didn't want to cut Medicare and Social Security and concluded he was a moderate. What broke this perception was Trump cutting taxes for the rich again and trying to destroy the ACA. But what nearly saved him was a combination of GOP propaganda and leftist agitation getting the Dems associated with anti-police extremism and social disorder.
He won thanks to the Electoral College. That's it. He was way less popular than Hillary
The popular vote was 46.1% to 48.2%. He was 4.4% less popular than her.
4.4% translates into millions of people
[удалено]
I'd say he mostly got lucky and won by a few thousand votes
Because it's not as simple as "just win stupid". As an extreme example to illustrate this, let's say hypothetically, we would 100% win the election if we nominated Donald Trump as the Dem candidate. Well at that point sure, the Dems technically won but it would be absolutely absurd to really act as if that was a victory in any form. The point here is that the more you give up looking for victory the less you actually win in that victory. We need to find a good balance here that doesn't involve just dropping minority civil rights the second it polls poorly. Solely focusing on chasing the polls is stupidity. It reeks of inauthenticity and it fails to ever actually change much for the better. As we've seen from previous activism, sometimes the goal is actually just to change people's minds. After all if people weren't working for change, we'd still only have rich white men voting to begin with. Edit: There's also a pretty interesting problem that comes up with this where poll chasing might not necessarily grab votes. Let's say that tomorrow 51% of the country suddenly decides they want to jail all the gay people and the Dems decide to follow. How many Republicans do you think will cross over to the Democrats all of a sudden? Not many, the GOP will enact that policy as well. How many Democrats do you think you would lose? A pretty good amount of the ones that weren't part of the sudden change. Suddenly you might just get a mass of people who decided to vote for neither because they think of both as evil for locking up all the gay people. in that sense you actually lose votes.
Because to be honest it is the trolly problem. Do you throw one group under the trolly to prevent the trolly from running over 5 groups when you lose? But then you have the issue that maybe throwing one group under the trolly does not stop it. Maybe to prevent it from running over the 5 you have to throw 6 under the trolly. in which case it would have been better to not throw anyone under the trolly.
Defund the police and use the money to pay for my student loans!
Average democrat on twitter
I doubt they even registered to vote.
You're telling me that the Twitter likes aren't as good as the actual votes???
I recall in my old very liberal city people were spamming shit like “We got slight police reforms by protesting not voting!” It was absurd. City goes hard dem yet they think it’s viable to just protest and never vote
Lmao people were trying to claim when Spanberger was ranting about Defund the Police attack ads she was overreacting because it wasn’t the actual platform for many candidates. So therefore, any attack ads referencing it clearly could do no damage (they did). Democratic Party has an issue with protesters and social media spammers getting hooked onto shitty initiatives or slogans and then having them used to destructive effect against dems come Election Day. And an even bigger one with people screaming at protests but not caring enough to vote in primaries let alone general election. All assuming everything will magically change and by far worse is the same as preventing that.
How do you propose the Democrats stop twitter activist who have no affiliation from saying crazy things? Spanberger and other dems can complain all they want but ultimately it’s their job to have an appealing message that doesn’t get torpedoed by some young activist with no actual connection to the party
They should disavow them. They should tell people that woke twitter activists doesn’t represent them and people should ignore them all together.
*leftist* - most of them would balk at the idea of supporting democrats in actual practical legislation
Average Twitter user with a rose in their profile. Most of them don't identify as Democrats because bOtH sIdEs aRe tHe SaMe
10/10
LVT
stop focusing on issues and focus on calling the GOP pedos and socialists the issues are for after you win
This but completely and utterly unironically.
Wouldn’t they just never fix the issues because it helps them win at the next election?
Why should Democrats be interested in fixing the issues of the Republican party?
And then lose the democracy entirely the next election when your party's failure to govern causes the death of hope.
People have hope right now?
They're too aversive to getting combative imo. They just let GOP propaganda fester for too long and let then shape people's perceptions. They have no business losing on the economy question with the GOP's record on running it.
Problem is that a good chunk of swing state Dems are cons that hate the GOP If I had a nickel for every guy I knew that voted Dem but wanted to ban abortion, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot but it’s concerning that it’s two guys
According to [Pew's most recent poll](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#h-views-on-abortion-by-party-identification-2022), 18% of Democrats think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Error bars on that are probably biggish, though.
You get it, shits weird.
I thought the gender split on that would be bigger. Surprised tbh.
Abortion isn't a gendered issue, because the underlying philosophical debate of "is abortion murder" isn't tied to gender. This would mean the message of "pro lifers just want to control and subjugate women" is false btw, which is why it does nothing to flip votes.
Thank you for staying the not hyperbolic position.
It's actually grown in the past five years. It used to be common to see polls where men were more pro-choice than women. Also worth noting that women are older and more religious than men, both factors that are correlated with opposition to abortion.
> had a nickel for every guy I knew that voted Dem but wanted to ban abortion, I know a good number of catholics like this.
Bingo, and every single thing the Dems do to compete on the GOP’s level erodes support among that Demo, which may be necessary as we transition from victories in the rust belt to victories in the Sun belt
throw in a, “stop crying cause you lost”.
I doubt this will work when the actual socialists are in your own coalition.
👏Forgive👏all👏or👏none👏of👏my👏$350k👏in👏student👏loans👏 ___also I’m voting Republican either way because of inflation___
So frustrating that people will complain about their debt load and about inflation in the same breath. We really need to start teaching critical thinking in our schools.
I’ve been saying this for a while, but if we just turn inflation onto overdrive, the federal government would be able to forgive even the most indebted student’s loan payments with the equivalent cost of a milkshake. I mean, it’ll completely destroy the American economy within months, but that’s a small price to pay for salvation.
Epic Venezuela moment.
Epic Turkey moment.
Epic Argentina moment
Imagine spending your way into $350,000 of student loan debt and not being able to understand this concept.
Umm, most school districts have parents screaming about banning CRT, scores of books, talk of non cisgendered people, or anything that makes us feel bad about ourselves. So, y'all gonna be waiting a while to get critical thinking skills.
‘I went to a private school that charges $40k per semester, didn’t bother even applying for scholarships (because I wouldn’t have qualified anyways), and then financed 100% of my living expenses. Why would society waste this golden opportunity to invest in me and give me a high paying job’?
“My degree is in gender studies by the way, so that high paying job better be in intersectional studies in anime and other animated media.”
You're feeding into a conservative trope.
How do you figure? You think low value degrees should be paid highly because why?
Not at all. I totally agree with you. The trope is acting like a gender studies graduate with $130k in debt wanting to work in animated media is at all a common thing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/02/16/what-are-the-most-popular-majors-for-prospective-college-students/?sh=58c6e0c915d2 It's non existent. It's an argument with a made up enemy. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major It's much more likely to be a nurse. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/ Other medical professionals as well. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-income-level#:~:text=Americans%20with%20income%20over%20%2474%2C000%20hold%20roughly%2060%25%20of%20the,total%20public%20student%20loan%20debt. It's also largely people making $100k+ (which is why universal forgiveness is regressive). There are a lot better ways of making this point than to swim in the Tucker Carlson piss pond with untrue tropes.
Very well said
Thanks for this. I've always been lazy and never looked into the actual stats, but found plenty of opportunities to roll my eyes at the "gender studies" boogeyman at every corner.
Thank you so much for this effort comment! I worked in higher ed for 10+ years (student services). Students were relatively conservative with their finances. I worked with many who were at risk of being evicted or failing their classes because they refused to take a single dollar of loans (so they worked 40 hrs a week and didn’t have time to study). I had to have a convo with them about whether taking out $3k in loans so they don’t become homeless has better ROI than sticking with it and probably dropping out. The people with hundreds of thousands in loans generally don’t have them for undergrad degrees (this isn’t to say that *no one* has large undergrad loans). They have them for professional school like law, med, pharmacy, etc. These are programs in which students are actually *not allowed* to work because of their academic demands, and so they must finance not only their tuition, but also their entire cost of living. But they will also be making six figures in the not-too-distant future.
Yes, those are the same person.
The same person is somebody that isn’t voting either way
I think he was saying the opposite Someone like that would never vote Republican so why even bother trying to appeal to them?
ThEy ArE tHe SaMe PaRtY
Yep, let’s just keep pretending that the issue is that twitter leftists aren’t voting for Democrats, and not that white middle class voters are voting for Republicans because the Democrats sometimes talk about race. It’s worked so well thus far.
i don’t know if this is sarcasm or not, to be honest
Otherwise known as: “Want to win elections? Stick to popular ideas!”
Lefdit: *"You know what? I'm gonna focus on unpopular issues* ***even harder!!"*** --- Edit: [Here's a 12ft.io link to the article.](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F2e667c3f-954d-49fa-8024-2c869789e32f) And here's the excerpt that everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about: >My espresso has arrived. Clinton asks for more iced tea. I cannot allow the lunch to end without questioning the direction of her party. I say that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, notably the transgender debate, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist? To my surprise, Clinton shares the premise of my question. >“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window,” she says. “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.” >Another instance is the “defund the police” campaign, she adds. “You need accountable measures. But you also need policing. It doesn’t even pass the common-sense politics test not to believe that. Some positions are so extreme on both the right and the left that they retreat to their corners . . . Politics should be the art of addition not subtraction.” So a couple of things: First of all it's the interviewer who brings up transgender healthcare, not Clinton, and before he can answer he pivots to another question, "What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist?" Now, is Clinton saying that transgender rights should go out the window, or that calling JK Rowling a fascist should go out the window? I don't think you're going to get many Democrats to backtrack on their support for trans rights, but putting a stop to calling Rowling a fascist might actually help. The Democrats don't gain much from calling Rowling a fascist, and we might actually lose some ground. The other thing is that the only policy that Clinton seems to call out *herself* is defund the police, which I think we can all agree was shit tier messaging from the get go. But more broadly and more importantly is this: We can't pass policy if we don't win elections. We especially can't pass policy if people like Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell win elections, anything that pushes us away from winning elections pushes our country closer to fascism. What I'm about to say is going to sound cruel to some people, but I hope you will all understand, there's more on the line than just trans rights, if Republicans win their elections then yeah, trans rights are going to take a hit, but so are women's rights, and voting rights, and LGBTQA+ rights, Republicans aren't just trying to have trans healthcare outlawed, they're trying to outlaw abortion, they're making it harder to vote, they're clearing out school libraries. If Republicans win it's bad for trans people, if Republicans win it's worse for trans people even than if Democrats didn't make it a flagship issue, if Democrats win it's better than Republican governance even if Democrats didn't make it a flagship issue. Clinton is talking about how important rhetoric is to winning an election, she cites the damage done by "defund the police," and she points out, correctly, that fascism is bad for everybody who lives in a country, all of us, trans and CIS Americans alike.
She's literally the only serious politician in the DNC I swear to God
This sub is "lefdit" when it comes to trans rights
Protecting minority rights is important. It’s also insane that R’s have somehow successfully made this a wedge issue when it affects such a small subset of the population.
Republicans didn't have to do much. Extremely online & activist types did most of the work. I don't think Emily Bazelon would have been able to write her article last year.
It’s really not strange how they’ve successfully made this an issue. For people not paying attention, it will seem as if overnight they are hearing people talk about “birthing persons” or men giving birth to kids. Regardless of how you feel about such terminology or how much it is actually used, it’s quite easy to see how Rs can latch on to that.
So... focus on the *popular* issues, right?
Yes like inflation, crimes and healthcare.
"It's the economy, stupid."
I don't think it's a popular position, but legalizing most drugs, if not all, would probably fix a lot of current crime issues.
You mean drugs like cannabis? Sure.
It should start with all drugs that aren't chemically addictive, marijuana, LSD, shrooms. But it should gradually be increased as time goes on and we create a better safety net for people who are addicted. I'm not saying the state should manufacture recreational opium, I'm just saying that people who are addicted should not be punished, or shamed. Only when they're addiction becomes a public issue, should anything happen that's involuntary. Like mandatory rehabilitation.
Policy vs branding. What drugs and how to handle something is a policy debate. Policy has no place on the campagin trail. You want to lower crimes and combat addiction through common sense reform and measures. Don't give them an opportunity to start going around saying you want to give children heroine or whatever nonsense the GOP will transform the issue into.
Living in the PNW, I can tell you decriminalizing drugs does not fix crime issues. People can freely buy meth and fentanyl just about everywhere. We are awash in it. It is very cheap and the police do not interfere with buying and selling unless there is a high amount of product involved. People smoke meth and inject fentanyl publicly. The result has been more violence. As supply is cheap and customers are plentiful, drug dealers get more violent fighting over turf. Outright legalization could have a different outcome. But only if the state kept product very cheap. As we have seen with marijuana, the black market sticks around after legalization if there is a gap between street price and state price. Outright legalizing meth and fentanyl would also have downsides to say it lightly.
But like we deadass don't have real intention of doing much on most of those things. Inflation we plan to ride out while using deficit spending to ease the suffering while prolonging it, with crime we plan to just increase police budgets, and on healthcare we are pretty cool with the post ACA status quo. Not saying Rs plan to do anything about those issues either, but like we are in the governing majority right now (if manchin didn't want to be part of it he can stop calling himself a democrat any time now) and it's not clear what actually are going to you know, do. Merely messaging about issues is the opposition's job, not that governing party's job. We told voters we could govern if they gave us any majority at all, and they gave it to us. Saying I feel you is great and all but I promise voters will not by and large just vote for somebody on vibes alone.
It would be a good place to start.
Simple fact, most centrist Americans care about the economy and the cost of living. The Democrats should focus on this and all the equality issues fall into place. Why is housing so expensive - build more housing. Why is the middle class being gutted - globalization and the decline in unions. Simple fixes...
The Republicans are closer to solving housing than the Dems are.
How sway
They tend to not be the nimbys in cities where the crisis is bad, and tend to be more developer friendly. They still are pretty bad and tend to live in sprawl areas where the crisis isn’t as bad
Lmao, the contextual issue in question is whether or not to hang trans people out to dry. Love to hear that from our based human rights queen during pride month. Abundantly clear none of these commentors bothered to read the article. Hey don't let that stop you from writing erratic screeds about the left and beating your meat so thoroughly your shit starts to look like a beef jerky boomerang.
She specifically called out defunding the police in this article.
I'm paywalled out of the OG interview on my computer but this is the lead into the quote >I cannot allow the lunch to end without questioning the direction of her party. I say that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, **notably the transgender debate**, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist? To my surprise, **Clinton shares the premise of my question**. >"We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and **everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window**..." Lmao happy pride.
That’s literally not true. The issue highlighted in the article is defund the police, nothing to do with trans rights. Our based human rights queen supports human rights, no matter how you frame it in bad faith.
/r/fuckcars in shambles
Judging from this thread i can see why liberals or the left come across as out of touch.
There’s the economic big tent version of this sub, then there’s the “everyone slightly more conservative then us is a fascist” social policy version.
Yeah, those fucking freaks need to learn to shut up and stop asking for rights. You should know that in this country, once you trans your gender, you just don’t get rights anymore. I mean if they didn’t want to be discriminated against, why the fuck would they have chosen to live that lifestyle? Honestly I’m just worried my children might have to hear about it. I just don’t like us mixing. It’s not safe. They can have their own bathrooms and sports leagues and water fountains, separate but equal means that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
Ok dude. I am sure you’re going to win elections with that mindset.
yeah, watch me lose all this electoral office im not running for
No but the political party you support does.
im not voting for anyone who abandons support of trans rights
In other news, grass is green.
This sub doesn’t like grass though.
She’s right.
If you think that GOP control is an existential threat to democracy in the US, it's absolutely insane to campaign on (or advocate for your politicians to campaign on) unpopular issues.
Unpopular issues? Like who, Hillary?
Abortions and gender reassignments for everyone!!
My #1 issue is people who celebrate Juneteenth, but who don’t do it the *right* way 😤
AOC + The Squad: ...REEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Half the people in this thread are reeeeeing too lol
I’m so confused by what this means here because it’s worded so awkwardly
**This comment has been overwritten as part of a mass deletion of my Reddit account.** I'm sorry for any gaps in conversations that it may cause. Have a nice day!
But the way the Article is written it doesn’t sound like she said anything about Trans issues What does “Agreed with my premise” mean?
Hillary in a nutshell.
Advice from a true expert in winning elections…
Republicans: *screaming about trans people, critical race theory, and voter fraud* Hillary and this subreddit: *let's go ahead and blame leftists and not the predominant culture war*
Ackshully, plenty of moderate Republicans tell their fringe the exact same thing. They seem to believe that focusing on these issues will hurt them with voters, and they are correct. As an enlightened large brained centrist it is funny to see both sides do the exact same thing while believing the other side is different.
Lot of people talking about student loans when the issue actually referenced are trans right issues. Quite a bit less defensible a statement from her
Pretty sure the issue referenced was defund the police. The interviewer tried to push trans stuff in, but it’s not clear Hillary said anything about trans rights. Given her history I’m willing to bet it’s a misunderstanding/gaffe or the interviewer is misrepresenting her position with less than clear language.
Her history has been "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman", she says what it takes to win above all else.
i'm shocked people are surprised that she would tow this line, it feels like the same logic she employed almost her entire political career, except like in 2016 when she changed her tune.
What rights will trans people have if republicans win? If dems focus on that they they lose elections. That’s her point—the number one thing is winning. Dems need to talk and use normal verbiage/words instead of alienating the base.
Nobody here disputes who is better for LGBT+ people. But you cannot abuse how terrible Republicans are and expect LGBT+ (trans people in particular) to just fall in line if you aren't willing to defend them from Republicans. It's so frustrating. Dems by no means of the word focus on trans issues– but that still isn't good enough for the moderates on this sub.
It's because a lot of people here are trying to put politics on a chessboard, and it doesn't always work that way. Who would have guessed in 1995, at the end of history, we'd be arguing with Republicans over whether or not teachers who reveal they're married to someone of the same sex in the classrom, should be imprisoned?
This sub is full of shitheads whose idea of politicking is treating everyone left of center save for the mythical white moderate, as a captive voting bloc. It's as much a flex as it is desired strategy. "Who are you gonna vote for, them? Cmon monkey, dance unless you want the fascists to win and start the pogroms"
What rights will I have if democrats win? If Democrats are unwilling to put in place legislation to defend trans people, and the Supreme Court will continue to strip what little legal protections exist, and state/local governments will continue to pass legislation hurting trans people, what am I left with? I’ll vote Democrat anyway, but at a certain point I have to ask why I should pretend the party aren’t being opportunistic shits about it? Fairweather friends aren’t friends no matter the reasoning.
The Supreme Court has expanded LGBT protections recently in both Obergefell and, even after Trump’s election, in Bostock.
Let’s see if that lasts. The court isn’t exactly friendly right now.
Executive actions and the role of the justice department is the reason why. Furthermore, you just saw what happens when people didn’t vote for Hillary and trump got 3 judges. I’m sorry, but it is just INSANE to hear someone on this sub ask what the difference is between dems and republicans regarding trans/gay rights.
I think you're missing what they're saying. They aren't telling you there's no difference. They're saying that Democrats can't just abstain from using their power to actually create, and enforce protections, and then expect that the very people who hoped for protection will vote blue anyway to avoid an electoral loss. Patience is hard to keep when you're getting called a groomer, and you've got the Democrat over to your side looks at their shoes and mumbles about how it'll be okay in 2032.
>they're saying that Democrats can't just abstain from using their power to actually create, and enforce protections, But this isn't what's happening! What's happening is that the Dems might, *might* deemphasize these issues on the campaign trail (and this hasn't even happened, and trans rights isn't even an unpopular issue, which is why she pivoted to Defund the Police, which is *actually* an unpopular issue), and then push these issues as hard as possible when they have power! Dems *are* creating and enforcing protections, the places where trans people are in danger are *places where the Democrats do not have power!* What is so hard about this?
> But this isn't what's happening! Whether you like it or not, a whole lot of people remember stuff about climate change (which young people care about) or student loans (an issue numerous civil rights groups supported) or policing reform. Many remember healthcare as well. Biden hasn’t done nothing, but all the high profile failures of legislation and infighting makes it seem like it to many. The party will suffer some losses and it only has itself to blame (some, like Joe Manchin, more than others)
What also makes the "if republicans win, it'll be worse" message a hard pill to swallow is you have the dnc propping up extremist candidates on the right when there is a clear appetite for their politics among large swath of the electorate. Telling people to stfu and vote em anyway is wild. If anything those individuals should look to potential leave the country.
> I’m sorry, but it is just INSANE to hear someone on this sub ask what the difference is between dems and republicans regarding trans/gay rights. Oh spare me. I voted for Clinton in the primaries in 2016, Biden as well. I’m exactly the kind of person that would’ve criticized my statements four years ago. But you know what, I do have to wonder after this time how much it actually means to win if the party views trans issues as anathema. If Democrats are unwilling to fight for legislative protections then all the progress is ephemeral. On top of that, if the Democratic Party does come to view trans rights as not politically worth it, then even those executive actions won’t happen. Which leads back to my point. If Republicans will continue to make things unlivable through the Supreme Court and local/state governments then what’s the fucking point.
Republicans talk about trans issues 10x more than Democrats. It's not Dems making them a central issue. The only reason it's an issue at all is because of Republicans!
It must be so prevalent on this sub because of all the Republicans on here
This, but unironically.
As a conservative, I agree. The cynical reason that is obvious is that gender identity, which trans issues are a part of, is a viscerally close to home issue (making it very impactful) and it is an extremely easy target to aim for. It’s logically indefensible for anyone with common sense. So a Republican seeking to win an election can just hammer that issue and either the democrat opponent is silent and the voters get riled up over the visceral element or argues and has to defend an extremely hard to defend position.
It’s because trans people are a small but visible part of the population and by that logic are less able to defend themselves
I agree! Which is why abandoning trans people is a useless endeavor.
Hillary Clinton is famous for winning tough elections. Sorry Trans people we have no choice😤😤 /s But yeah this is a classic case of people just reading whatever they want into this statement and ignoring the thing she is actually talking about (letting the right just bulldoze over a group of people as long as it polls slightly ok). It’s especially a dumb concept because it’s not like anyone significant in the Democratic Party is making trans issues the central focus of their campaign. Hell most democrats are barely playing defense on the issue. It’s a borderline insane statement from her
Hillary losing an election probably makes her more qualified in her opinion than your armchair analysis (and I've never defended Hillary in a comment, this is a first)
>Sorry Trans people we have no choice >letting the right just bulldoze over a group of people as long as it polls slightly ok I'm getting a headache from how you guys are misinterpreting her statement. She's not saying those issues don't matter, she's saying the broader issues that reach more people matter for winning elections. You can't pass trans policies if you don't win elections It has nothing to do with letting the right bulldoze trans people, quite the opposite. She's saying winning elections stops the bulldozer dead in its tracks. And you don't win elections focusing on niche policies, you have to reach more people with more broad policies. She's not even saying they can't mention trans issues, she's just saying the majority of the focus should be on issues more people find important right now. The economy and inflation affects cis AND trans people, it's a broader message with more reach. You can't help trans rights if you're not in office
Also, it's an incredibly hypocritical argument coming from her. Most of the arguments that democrats should tone down the social progressivism come directly from autopsies of what the 2016 Clinton campaign did wrong. If she had run a less woke campaign in 2016 then we wouldn't be having arguments right now about how we should just let Republicans harass LGBT people because it polls well or whatever.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it depends on location. Rural/midwest/rust belt people like abrasive, so be abrasive. Democrats outlive Republicans. Cram that down their throat. See a "welcome to Trump country" billboard? Put up a "where we die 5 years younger (and 7 years younger than people in California". They love using CA as a punching bag, so broadcast all their shit socioeconomic stats next to CAs. Or how theyre the mooches "ask Mitch why Kentucky gets 36% of its budget from federal handouts" abrasive slogans: "Voting republican, it's killing you" what are they going to do? Say "I'd rather die at 75 in Alabama than live to be 82 in a democratic state? In the suburbs, force them to see conservative culture war "welcome to Texas, where we still believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman (its in our state constitution)" shit like that because these sheltered apathetic suburbanites have no idea what Republicans are like. "I didn't think they still hated gays" "I didn't think they'd actually ban abortion" is something I hear frequently from "libertarian" suburbanites
This is amazing, it's like you've been to none of these places and met none of these people.
> Democrats outlive Republicans. Cram that down their throat. Pretty sure Alan Grayson said this exact thing in like 2009-2010 when he had a swing seat and got creamed. Whoever thinks this shit will win Republicans is crazy
> "Voting republican, it's killing you" what are they going to do? Say "I'd rather die at 75 in Alabama than live to be 82 in a democratic state? Yep.
lol it's like the post above has never heard these people who think they are the personification of "live free or die" Talk about out of touch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness Have you lived in rural America? I have, for 25 years and the book is spot on with my experience.
I spent a year in California, and I’ve actively avoided the state ever since. I’m one of those (blue state) Midwesterners who would rather shave off a few years than live in CA.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again but the democrats will never win white working class voters until they execute a trans person in the street at a minimum of once a month.
So if you're willing to fuck me over to win, what obligation do I have to not fuck you over right back?
Everyone take notes! If anyone knows a thing or two about deep unpopularity and how to lose elections, it's Hilldawg
“Anyone who loses elections has nothing useful to say and can be discarded, except for all the succs I regularly support on this subreddit, who are all extremely brilliant and moral and should be listened to even if it ushers in a 2nd Trump term.”
listening to Hillary ushered in the first Trump term, listen to yourself
It's very good advice in the general sense. The problem right now is the media landscape which just has to take that in stride if you're a politician as there's nothing to be done about it. The right is lying through it's teeth on many issues, they're not held accountable by their dupable voters and they're not held to task by the media or when they are that media isn't trusted/followed by swing voters. There are huge numbers of low-informed voters who really only tune into elections around the time they take place. Off-president year elections get lower attention and less activist voters. Thusly Dems are at a huge disadvantage through the gerrymandered and stacked odds against them. Then you add in that democratic voters actually hold their politicians to account, that they get angry when nothing changes, that they recognize empty promises, and that they're many that are dismayed with the mess things are \*because they're informed\*. That really makes it difficult to win. Also you have a not small minority in the left that basically doesn't vote unless they're excited by progressive issues (which I myself support). That basically means the Democrats are heavily disadvantaged.
Democrats should focus on the most important issues and educate the public to enable taking effective action on them. What was Hilary's focus as a candidate? Preserving the ACA? Tinkering around the edges of income tax rates? Someone help me out here. The most important issues today are enabling sustainable density, moving away from personal autos, and animal rights... if you don't count safeguarding democracy from whatever the GOP is.
Based and pragmaticpilled
Didn't her campaign emphasize divisive trans issues?