Dems with anti-trans views are on the ballot. What should pro-trans voters do with them?
18 days ago by TRAHR to c/politics
Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.
We had that in Washington State but both parties worked to abolish it, saying that we were somehow too stupid to understand it.
I hate them both sooooo much.
Democrats can only maintain their position as controlled opposition if they control the party and can override primaries. If the people actually get a choice, then they become the people’s party and stand in opposition to the billionaire class.
We would have class war and eventually develop a strong state, similar to China, where billionaires get life sentences for bribery and can be fined and jailed for trying to undermine the state. China is so strict that it treats corrupt billionaires and government officials like we treat terrorists. There’s no legal maneuvering. They freeze your legal rights to conduct the investigation and trial, so that you cannot continue your corruption. China is a true state where leaders run the government, not businesses, whereas the United States is an oligarchy devolving into a system where private business owners run the government (fascism).
So make them fucking stop. "We've always done it this way" is the worst possible excuse for maintaining status quo. Just because things have always been shit doesn't mean they are cursed to always remain shit. They are, but only unless and until people do something about it.
Hell. China has executed sixteen billionaires.
Pro corpo Dems run WA state and likely will for a very long time. The latest evidence of corruption and ethics violations that are just swept under the rug and ignored are a really bad sign.
Seems to be getting worse as many Democrats from red states migrate here as they are just happy to vote for anyone with a DNC endorsement. They'll completely ignore the other dem candidates who want change in this state.
I just don't get the obsession with transgender people. What did they ever do other than just wanting to be left alone? Did a bunch of them bomb a bunch orphanages with burning puppies running out of the flaming building?
There is a large contingent of voters that are deeply religious and hate them.
This is what I am asking about. Why? What is the bug up religious people's asses about transgender people.
Their argument usually is that God doesn't make mistakes and trying to change the gender you're born with is just flaunting him or something. It's not a rational argument, their book or their pastor says it's unnatural and they follow like the little sheep their are.
The claim is that transgender people are rejecting the body God gave them. It's hypocritical though because most of them don't have an issue with physically disabled people getting medical care to treat their disabilities. My aunt is transphobic, though too incoherent to admit it, and she is also against blood transfusions and IVF on the grounds that they're against God's will. She's a hypocrite and would be dead from cancer without medical treatment.
Because they're devil worshipers. A large portion of so-called Christians actually worship Satan. You worship hate, you're following the Devil, not God. Some people are just evil.
They're a pawn that bigots like to use to rile their base and distract from other issues. With enough enthusiasm, a concerted effort can make about anything the enemy to rally against. It's mostly fear mongering, but also has a serious detrimental effect to those being targeted.
Lyndon B. Johnson: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Nonwhite, trans, gay, feminist, non-Christian, furry, etc -- substitute at will for the latest boogeyman.
Exactly. They'll take any group and demonize the "other" just to have someone they can point fingers at. It's all distraction. Sadly, trans people are the "other" of the moment. Historically, this shit doesn't end well, and when they're done with trans people they'll "other" another group.
They're an easy target because they're a small minority and it's easy to convince people who aren't educated in the subject that they're doing harm by letting men into women's spaces and making children change gender
Hey those puppies were Hamas /s
Authoritarian personalities agress toward outgroups who violate traditional norms, including socially traditional gender roles. They become a scapegoat during times of capitalistic economic uncertainty.
We’re in part of the cycle where liberal democracy decays and fascism flourishes. A core tenet of fascist ideology is the championing of the in-group with religious fervor and nationalistic pride. This is seen as a populist way to “save the country,” when the real problem is capitalism and the exploitation of workers. This is why fascists demonize socialists, communists and even liberals.
Both the GOP (conservatives) and the far left (tankies) can reflect this personality type.
It's a greatly exaggerated/manufactured culture war topic for the purpose of distracting from the very real class war.
It's not a coincidence that anti-trans rhetoric started around the same time the war on terror started losing its effectiveness as an excuse and the 1% narrative was starting to take root.
It's the classic fascist tactic of scapegoating a minority, as part of fascist strategy. Look up how fascism works, that is a big part of it.
The ignorati believe that transfolk are grooming their little tax breaks. Which of course is wholly untrue. In fact, Christians are the only ones to have the god given right to groom not only their own larvae, but ALL parasites - foreign and domestic for the sole purpose to turn them into mindless and obedient hatemongers, just like their worshipped lord and savior.
MLK supported getting less bad segregationists elected during the early stages of the civil rights movement because they were easier to work with, do we still have segregation today? If trans people in sports is the only contention and they agree on everything else, then that's progress. We can fight on the trans people in sports point next primary. Let's also not forget that Donald Trump is trying to end Democracy entirely and will oppress more than just trans people.
Or it backfires if enough semi-transphobes get seats in Congress and join forces with the GOP on the issue, and this trans rights will be further set back.
Don’t tolerate the intolerant. If the GOP wins, the anger of the people builds. It should’ve happened years ago, but here we are. Americans have become too distracted and complacent.
Trump and the GOP are merely symptoms of problems within the average American consumeristic voter. And now with the attraction of social media outrage clickbait, Trump and the GOP are leveraging this for even more attention and notoriety.
You probably have the privilege of being cis, so telling someone to fuck off because they’re defending someone who’s vulnerable isn’t very on-brand for a liberal.
Actually, yeah it is. You only care about money and property, like every other American. That supersedes human rights.
Your opportunistic lib candidates will absolutely sell out the queer community to maintain their seat. After all, capitalism is their thing too. They just like to mask it behind platitudes and promises.
You're not defending anyone. You're making it easier for the GOP to erase all of our rights, including the rights of trans people.
Voting shouldn’t be a sacrifice of that magnitude.
For a lot of single-issue voters, this kind of calculation is theoretical. For trans people right now, it is not. An anti-trans Democrat in office is a harm. A Republican who is openly, aggressively, legislatively hostile to trans existence is a different order of harm. Both things are true, and genuinely hard to reconcile.
Yeah, that's an awful choice. I can't think of a better option than the article presents — name the candidates and their shortcomings/wrongs.
maybe the Democrat can still be reasoned with?
My thing is this. Trans rights isn't really a major public issue in this election season. Not saying that is good or bad, just that it is. I would say anyone being anti-trans right now isn't doing it as a some sort of spineless electoral strategy. It simply isn't an issue on the majority of voters minds right now, which makes me really side-eye someone taking such a hard stand when it isn't even beneficial from their own perspective. It makes me think there is some hate in their heart for trans people. But even if not, they are willing to throw trans people under the bus for very little benefit to their own campaign. I wonder what little it would take to corrupt them after they get into office.
I can't look at all of that, then use my own privilege to say "Hey trans person. This candidate doesn't just disagree with you, they are anti-you, so I know that sucks and all but can you go ahead and vote for the greater good? We can convince them later." That's just not my call to make.
Politicians get worse after they're elected, not better.
Obama started out as anti-gay marriage and by the end of his term voted to make it law
If you're going to sacrifice your own safety and security, at least let it be for revolutionary direct action, not laying down for the slaughter.
Vote for the pro-trans Republican instead, obviously! /S
The time to oppose anti-trans Democrats is the primary. In the general election, it's too late: at that point your choice is an anti-trans Democrat or an anti-trans and otherwise fascist Republican.
The only question that's valid to have about Talerico on this topic is "is Ken Paxton better, or is he even worse?" The answer is, "no, Ken Paxton is even worse." If Talerico doesn't win, Paxton WILL. End of.
For trans Texans, not voting for Talerico in order to keep Paxton out of office is objectively idiotic -- it's basically suicide by spite. That's just reality, and reality doesn't give a fuck if you like it or not.
Found the cis person.
And what on Earth makes you conclude that? He's already slid to the right on trans issues, what's to stop him from decaying further? Every other politician that starts on transphobia ends up sliding into the deep end of it. Why should he be any different?
And furthermore, politics is about building coalitions. No two candidates will ever agree on everything, and no candidate will ever represent every single one of your interests. You have to pick the best choice for you out of what you've got. If you think a Republican will represent your interests as a trans person more than a Democrat, then go for it.
You really misunderstand coalitions. The whole point of a coalition is that a bunch of minority groups will get together and say, "I'll support your issues if you support my issues." The minute the rest turn against one member group of that coalition, they're no longer part of that coalition.
You're asking trans people to support a party that is actively seeking to throw trans people out of the party. According to transphobe democratics, trans people simply are not part of the Democratic coalition.
I agree with you! To quote myself from another, now deleted thread:
You gotta get the pro-trans candidate in the primary. If you wait to look up if your candidates are anti-trans until right before the general then you waited too fucking long.
Waiting until after the primary to realize that both candidates are anti-trans is like waiting until your house is already on fire to consider if you should buy fire extinguishers. Voting for the shitty Democrat is painful but letting the even shittier Republican who also hates immigrants too win is like adding gas so that your neighbor's house will burn too.
Talarico wasn't properly vetted before the primary.
How convenient. There's always an excuse. Anything to avoid the conclusion that sometimes you need to be willing to vote against traitors in the general.
One of the best responses I've heard was from the Professional Left:
(Starting around the 26:30 mark)
Boils down to: Democrats can be educated, Republicans will destroy you. Quite possibly in the literal sense.
I like how its always a minorities job to vote against their own self interest "for the greater good" and not the job of a Democratic politician to not throw them under the bus. Especially with how seemingly extremely important this one demographic is if a significant portion of said demographic not voting will cause the candidate to lose.
Not for the greater good - for their own good. Even if you only care about one issue (and justifiably so), and both candidates are on the wrong side of that issue, it is likely that one of them is far worse on that issue than the other. It doesn’t have to feel good to vote for the someone who stands in opposition to your interests, but it is better than letting the person who stands in opposition to your existence win.
My issue isn't whether voting for a democratic candidate or not is better overall as a trans person, I think basically every trans person in the US knows that policy wise a democrat will, at worst, be the same as the republican they're running against on trans rights specifically, and at least a bit better on some others. (There is a consistent belief on every one of these posts that somehow trans people don't understand that as well, which is a different issue lol)
The point is that if a politician doesn't lose support/votes for taking an anti-trans position, then there's nothing punishing them for taking that position. That's the argument being made about how voting for an anti-trans democrat is voting against your own good, not because of their policy specifically, but because by voting for them in spite of it you send a signal that their position on trans issues can be the same as a republicans as long as they're marginally better than one in other ways.
For what its worth, I'm trans and am planning on voting for all Democrats in the midterms, even though I'm disappointed in a few of them. However, there are a couple candidates mentioned in this article specifically (namely cuellar + kaptur and a few others) where I think not voting for them has a very strong argument I'd consider if I lived in those states.
If a an anti-trans Democrat loses to a more anti-trans Republican, the lesson they learn is they should have been more anti-trans to win.
Not voting assists the rightward ratchet. Nobody can hear your silence.
If a an anti-trans Democrat loses to a more anti-trans Republican, the lesson they learn is they should have been more anti-trans to win.
That's an insane statement. A Democrat takes a fringe position not generally supported by the party and loses. Therefore, that must mean they should become even more fringe.
That dog don't hunt.
If an anti trans Dem loses to a more anti trans Rep, the lesson they will learn from this is that they should be more anti trans to sway even just a single republican voter. Democrats don't care about you or your interests they just want money from their overlords, and those overlords love it when the proletariat is mauling itself
If someone said "I want to kill you humanely" and their opponent just said "I want to kill you", I think the rest of us wouldn't be chastising you for refusing to vote for either. This is an issue easy for cis people to counsel a cost-benefit analysis on, but it's deeply personal for the victims.
If these politicians think throwing them under the bus will net them votes that's on the politician to prove, not for their victims to support.
I’m cis myself, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a very personal stake in this fight. I have yet to hear of a Democrat politician that thinks trans people should die - I wish I could say the same about republican politicians.
They have though. Once you support one policy against trans people based on nothing more than unscientific fear and bigotry, there's no logical reason you can't support all of them. Trans women have no advantage in sports; it's based on nothing but stereotypes. And every place that's started with sports restrictions have moved on to far more restrictions.
Here's what I would like to see these transphobe dems suggest. Put your money where your mouth is. Propose compromise legislation that actually does what you say your policies are. Are sports really what you care about? Fine. Pass a national law that says:
- Sports are based on assigned gender at birth.
- No state or federal law can restrict access to trans medical care, for trans people of any age.
- All states and the federal government must protect access to correct IDs.
- Enshrine trans anti-discrimination into federal law.
Is this really about sports? Fine. Fucking act like it. If this really were about sports, I think most trans people would happily trade a ban on sports participation in turn for all of our other rights being firmly protected and enshrined in federal law.
Exactly. I'm frankly sick and fucking tired of cis people telling trans people how they know our needs so much better than we do. The hubris is astounding.
Yeah the constant through line on every one of these kinds of posts from people that minorities of any type are too stupid to understand that Republicans are bad for them or something is kinda gross. Like basically every left-leaning minority person discussing Democrat politicians falling short gets that republican policies are typically worse, the issue is not having a good alternative that's not still bad, and choosing not to vote for them is based on that, not some notion that they'll be better off under a republican. The whole point of voting is supposed to be that your vote gives you leverage to influence politicians to take your stance (or more accurately to convince you of that to keep people from doing actions that actually meaningfully affect change).
Saying "vote blue no matter who" or whatever equivalent of you should vote for a democrat no matter what just allows democrats to ignore that supposed leverage and hold voters hostage by using MAGA as a point of leverage to try and force people to vote for them. There's a reason that Trump never got arrested under Biden, or barred from office, and Democrats kept preaching unity rather than consequences. They directly benefit from MAGA existing.
Trump isn't even the problem at the end of the day, he's a symptom of a much deeper problem that won't be fixed by just electing a Democrat majority for 8 years straight, much less for one election. The entire US was founded on racism, sexism, and classism, and those were written into the foundation of the electoral college, the senate, the house, and everythting else. The democrats have no incentive to fix that though as long as they keep winning roughly 50% of the time and can get their money and help their corporate backers.
Anyway sorry for the rant lol, I'm just also frustrated by the number of cis people in this post saying dismissive or kinda transphobic things and being upvoted for it lol.
Yeah. It's pure arrogance. What they refuse to admit is that sometimes the only power minorities have, the only way we can actually influence anything, is to be willing to act as a spoiler if we're betrayed by our leaders.
Of course, the cis mansplainers in this thread don't want minorities actually exercising independent power. They want our votes, but not our voices.
I’ve started getting involved with my local Democratic Party. I no longer consider myself a Democrat, but they don’t need to know that, and I figure if I’m able to get more up close and personal, influence people in real time that would be a much better option than just not voting for these anti trans democrats or doing nothing.
This is the best tactic for those who can do it
Vote for lesser evil + organize, get loud and make being trans normal in red states. The American system is so screwed up with no ability to dissolve your legislatures before the 4 year cycle. If you live in a state of those races, it would be better to be ignored than your rights taken away. If you need anything go seek the support of a Democrat that is pro-trans from out of your state, with control of Congress they would be able to help you more if your state's legislators are useless but of the same caucus rather than of a caucus that is actively blocking efforts. Sorry if I sound flippant about it, but I would tell moderate voters the same about a progressive candidate.
If you're worried about the ratchet affect, the solution I don't think is to turn the screws further in the direction of the ratchet. The UK example is weird, the Labour Party's somewhat to blame but I don't fully lay it at their feet, because their justice system is biased in very old ways, negatively affecting people's rights to gender expresssion.
The USA has already tried in 2016 the "haha, let Republicans vote for Donald Trump, they'll see how bad it is when they vote for racism rather than a milquetoast candidate and they will disavow it forever after" method, that didn't work, only made things a lot worse, he got elected again. Even if you have the long game in mind, not voting appears to send, even if a Republican wins 49% to 47%, a signal that the people mandate that trans people should be hurt, rather than a more neutral signal. States that had been trending red turning blue signals nationally a change in the direction of trans acceptance, regardless of the willingness of the candidate to associate during the campaign with pro-trans advocates or not.
I mean no offense but you are sounding ignorant on these topics and assuming it’s a choice of nothing happening or things getting worse, when the reality is it is both sides making things worse in these few instances.
These Democrats are not simply ignoring us, they are taking away our rights. They are working with Republicans to pass laws to limit our freedoms, they are copying their talking points to demonize us, for all intents and purposes they are no different on trans issues as Republicans.
Likewise the UK justice previously had greater support for trans people but was changed under Labor to redefine what it meant so that it could exclude trans people. This was not some archaic law, but a political choice by Labor to actively harm trans people.
You're still not going to get more rights by voting red or abstaining. You have allies. Let us help instead of forcing us to dig everyone out of a hole made by right wing fundie Christians
Nah. I think trans people and our allies should vote against transphobic democrats. If the rest of you democrats are going to throw us under the bus, y'all can come to Hell with us.
Guess what happens in an election with FPTP where a candidate from one of two parties will win, and people vote their conscience or don't vote at all.
The worse of the two candidates wins.
If we're talking about US senators or representatives, there's a lot of value in having a majority in either or both houses, and the margins are pretty slim. Yes, you'll risk getting another Fetterman, but the House majority party gets to pick the Speaker, which allows for a huge amount of control over what comes to the floor at all.
Can I have a source on the claim that the Equality Act was changed to redefine what it meant so that it could exclude trans people?
context
Not arguing that it was changed, but in the court decision, the judges relied on the 1976 Sex Discrimintation Act for and even the ruling judge said himself, that trans people "had been led to believe... for the last 15 years that they had rights, which they didn't have". It was a judicial interpretation of the law that evaluated the 2004 gender equivalency provisions against the 1976 law moreso than the 2010 law to narrow the protected class from the 2010 law.
If a Musky PAC were to run ads saying how terrible Brown or another candidate would be for trans rights, in the same way Jewish and Arab voters were shown contradictory messages in 2024, would that influence how or whether you vote?
they are copying their talking points to demonize us
To be clear, I think that trans people should compete in sports according to their gender and be conferred the same rights as anyone else. But people that want to limit trans people's participation in sports for flawed, scientifically refuted reasons while treating them as humans, I don't think is the same, as wanting to ban them from bathrooms changing driver's licenses and treating them as subhuman demon freaks. We should not equate the two.
To give a similar example, the fight for gay sex and marriage in Canada was fought over decades, and the stigma remains in small pockets. A progressive Prime Minister decriminalized it in the 1969 while not his entire Liberal Party was openly for it, and it was still in the decades after that a ban on workplace discrimination and in the 2000s when marriage was recognized. So we have to pull in the same direction, allow trans people the same basic rights as anyone else, then talk about competitive and recreational activites like sports later rather than just labelling it all as anti-trans sub-humanization talking points.
No issue is a strict binary - there are many degrees of transphobia, just as there are many degrees of any bigotry, as well as many degrees of non-human-rights issues, like support for public schools or privatization of health care. I would imagine that in almost every case where there is an anti-trans democrat running against an anti-trans republican, there is a significant difference both in terms of how rabidly transphobic the candidate is and which specific anti-trans policies they will support. There is also likely to be a big difference whether or not there is any potential for them to see the error of their ways. While most anti-trans democrats are likely on the wrong side of trans participation in sports, they are not likely to support criminalizing trans existence or encouraging violence against trans people, while many republicans are. They also will face pressure from pro-trans members of their own party, and from significant pro-trans constituencies, which republicans will not.
In FPTP voting systems, we rarely have the luxury of voting for candidates who have our full-throated support in the general election. Even if one issue is massively more important to you than the rest (and when that issue is a matter of survival, that is 100% valid), there is almost always a greater and lesser evil on that issue alone. Voting shouldn’t be viewed as a matter of identity or even as an endorsement, but rather as a practicality. It is a method of weighing in as to which of the limited options available is more tolerable (or less intolerable). Does that suck? Absolutely. Does it make sense to vote any other way within such a system? Not at all - because if the more tolerable side loses, the only lesson they are likely to take from that loss is to become more like the winning, intolerable side.
You getting downvoted for such a nuanced comment is insane. No wonder the republicans have so much power when people consistently vote against their own interests (or refuse to vote at all), even when one candidate is clearly much, much worse/better than the other.
Fifty years of voting for the lesser is what got us to Trump. It’s all anyone has been doing since before I’ve been alive.
You vote for evil, you get evil. It’s well past time to start demanding not-evil.
You do realize that Talarico is running for US Senate, right? Whether or not he gets elected has almost nothing to do with how Texas treats its trans residents. He has no say in TX politics as he is leaving the TX legislature in attempt to make it to the Senate.
And OP is saying that he will face consequences for choosing to change his position on the trans question after the primaries. Maybe he'll lose, and that will tell the DNC and other candidates not to use trans people as a scapegoat (which is a fascist tactic). But whether he wins or loses has no bearing on how Texas treats trans people.
I'll be frank: I don't think Paxton winning over Talarico will tell the DNC a single thing with respect to trans rights.
Whereas if Talarico wins, what is preventing him from changing his views in any way, at any point within the next 6 years? A Dem President in 2028, with the support of Congress including Talarico, can codify better protections for all humans, in all states despite any state like Texas' objections. Paxton as Senator would be an active obstacle to that type of effort.
Yeah. We know how the Senate works. The problem is that the party is choosing strategies to win elections and those strategies include things like supporting genocide, scapegoating vulnerable people, condemning communism, expanding the military and the police, honoring ICE agents, destroying RCV campaigns, and punching left. For every win they get with these strategies, they will use the victories to claim that this is the way the party must go. For every loss using these strategies, they will attack the voters and say it's the voters' fault for not voting properly. They will then pay social media influencers to claim that the party never actually cared about people who didn't vote for them, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last several decades on "get out the vote campaigns".
What expect is that if Paxton is willing to sacrifice his principles on the campaign trail, then he's likely to sacrifice his principles once in the Senate and will vote with his Republican colleagues, because that's the evidence he's providing us. We don't want another Manchin.
Why would you imagine Talarico moving to the left on trans issues, instead of further to the right? He's already proven he's willing to move to the right.
I could imagine both scenarios where he moves left or right after the election my comment didn't necessarily rule one out. Why are you only imagining Talarico moving to the right? And even if he does move rightward, the makeup of the Senate will still be more pro-trans than without him.
If you think a dem losing to a republican is going to send them a message about trans rights.... you are totally wrong.
Republicans are going out of their way to hurt Trans people, do not let them win by voting 3rd party in close races!
So what you're telling me is that my votes don't matter and won't send anyone a message and that Talarico showing he's willing to lie in the primaries about his position on trans people and then change his position after we vote for him is the best chance I have simply because his party is blue? So we'll get another Joe Manchin?
Uhhhh yes? Have you not paid any attention to how the two party system works?
I'm not saying it's good, but I'm saying if you want to have a chance at making it better we need massive amounts of dems so the ones who are progressive can pass changes to make it better.
Voting for a more progressive person who has zero chance of winning is throwing your vote away. That's how the system works. For years those voting green party for more liberal ideas have lost and split the vote so more republicans win who push platforms farther and farther right.
So yes, vote for the lesser of two evils until you have the opportunity to vote progressive and make your votes actually matter.
Primaries are the time to get the more progressive person for the election, don't vote on the election day "to send a message". That's how we get Trump and MAGA
We have the modern Republican party because people refused to support the not-insane and politicians changed their tune to avoid that. One of the arguments for el-Sayed in his primary victory was that Stevens would risk a replay of the Undecided issue. The idea that politicians (and other voters) just don't look at demographic voting trends at all and pretend anyone who didn't vote last election is a non-entity is silly.
send them a message
I've been hearing that kind of thing for decades - I remember single issuer voters voting Libertarian or Republican or whatever because the Democrats were "just as bad" on things like marijuana legalization, prison reform, etc.
There is effectively no message sent and nothing received when people sit out, throw their vote away on an absurd third party, or vote Republican.
Short Answer: Baby/Bath water idiom
Long Answer: Dems lose elections because sub groups hate someone they have 98% in common with than someone who likes to bomb children.
Was referring to the topic at hand... Trans rights.
Might vote against their interests vs will pursue legislation that will legitimately harm them. Seems like an obvious lesser of two evils situation. Fixing the 2 party system is not the war of today. The war of today is preventing the takeover of fascism.
So what do you think the best course of action is?
The primaries have already happened. Nothing is going to change the candidates on the ballots unless someone drops out. As we've seen, this isn't an issue that generates a big enough response for that.
We've seen the answer with Israel/Gaza. Sometimes you have to be willing to punish your own party in the general. The Democratic party has moved substantially on the Palestine issue over the last two years. That's only happened because of Kamala's loss. It never would have happened if she had won.
Btw, Talarico's shift in messaging is likely to counter ads from Maga Inc with clips of him saying that there's 6 biological sexes, Jesus was a radical feminist, god is non binary, and he's a christian who hates christianity.
It's best to not pay too much attention to campaign messaging. They'll say what they have to say to win, so looking at their past stances and voting history is a better metric. He's trying to win a seat in Texas, afterall.
Blue MAGA ☝️
This is how we got here.
...and no alternative given, so that's awesome.
These are the words of an entitled person, leading a charmed life right down the road from modern day interment camps.
entitled
Oh, cool, giving people no real viable option, then lecturing them on things like being "entitled" is going to be super-duper helpful in building a coalition to push back on conservatism. Thanks so much!
It's not actual elected representatives lying to us on the campaign trail and doing the exact opposite in the capital?
Remember the twenty ratfuckers who lined up to tell us they all had "the same policies as Bernie, but BETTER"????
It was the voters fault all along. Who would have guessed. Fuck me, right?
We got to vote for Bernie in the primary. Not enough people chose him over the “safer”, more conservative Biden (who definitely wasn’t advertised as having the same policies as Bernie). Biden was still way better than Trump, so we should have voted for him in the general. This isn’t complicated.
Thats more broad encompassing, whilst anti trans agenda is dangerously high right now, so specific reference is important here.
I'm against bigotry in general. However, since transgender people seem to be getting tread on a lot right now, I also make a point of saying I'm pro-transgender. It's a more specific form of anti-bigotry. Also, there are people who claim to be anti-bigotry and still have transphobic views.
Big "all lives matter" energy.
In the places where the blue candidate is a transphobe, it's transphobe vs transphobe
Yes, but if Dems remain in the minority, it’ll still be a Republican majority, giving them more time to dismantle democracy even further.
It’s the bigger picture which is most important. You cannot create lasting local change without removing the autocratic boot from above.
I mean, yes, let’s make these transphobe Dems as uncomfortable as possible. But America needs to roll back the fascism and authoritarianism, first. Without that first step, every other positive action is a house built on sand - it can be blown away from the top with infinite ease. And then it’s 1939 Germany all over again with pink triangles and pogroms aplenty.
And honestly, I see that outcome as the much, much worse one.
Yes, but if Dems remain in the minority, it’ll still be a Republican majority, giving them more time to dismantle democracy even further.
And if the transphobic Dems vote with the Republicans, trans people lose anyway. Democrats don't do party discipline, so the anti-trans laws get passed anyway under the guise of "concessions", so heads you're dead, tails you're still dead but someone somewhere feels bad about it.
The real problem is that no transphobic dem is capable of saving democracy.
Transphobic democrats are, at their very core, spineless cowards. They hold no real beliefs. There is no core to them. They simply follow the polls and hope to obtain power. They seek power for its own sake, not for what good they hope to do with it.
What the "blue no matter who" crowd forget is that saving democracy is unpopular. To truly save democracy, we're going to have to pass unpopular laws. We're going to have to rein in the power of the presidency. We're going to have to dismantle the post-9/11 security state. We're going to have to abolish ICE. But each of those things will result in headlines that Republicans will make great political hay out of. Abolish ICE? Some illegal immigrant is going to kill a white girl, and Republicans will be talking about it for years. Dismantling the surveillance state will actually mean we get hit with a few more terrorist attacks than we otherwise would.
Transphobe democracts are not going to save democracy. Saving democracy requires politicians who will look voters in the eye and say, "this is going to kill some Americans. I'm willing to let some Americans die if it means we save American democracy. Democracy is worth dying for." Can you imagine any of these spineless TERF democrats having that kind of moral conviction?
Democrats who vote against trans rights will also vote against any bill that's meant to seriously reinforce democracy. You can't save democracy by voting in transphobes. They lack the moral courage to save it.
Many people will fail to make it, unfortunately. Many of them in this comment section.
The problem is voting strategically does feel good. People would rather have a clear conscience and evil government than an OK government and the feeling of having voted for a schmuck because the other schmuck was also a fascist.
Behold, the results of the "valid 3rd choice."
choosing not to vote for the dnc is a valid long play, at the cost of risking republican victory in the short term, the length of the time is decided by the democrats.
vote for people who potray your values. people who claim that not voting for someone because they are only 2% off from acceptable vastly misrepresents the sheer % i disagree with the democratic platform based on their actions, and not their lies they tell near voting time
Sure, that's an option. But all you're doing is leaving the choice up to everyone else. No amount of abstention is going to shift this system into having more than 2 meaningful political parties.
If you really wanna say that neither candidate will produce a result you would prefer over the other, even if both are distasteful to you - then great, don't vote. When my only two useful options are between a warm hell and a hot hell, I will be casting my vote for the warm hell - and then using my time before the next election to try to get people to push for a less shitty Dem next time.
They MUST vote For them! Blue no MATTER who!
-People who voted for INDEPENDENT CUOMO Instead of Democrat Mamdani!
I disagree strongly with the Democratic party. I despise a good deal of their platform, and am disgusted with about 90% of those that are elected. To me, they are an insult and an embarrassment.
... and I still voted for them in the last national election. Nobody likes them.
You vote for them because they are more likely to change their tune than a republican.
Plus you do everything to make their life miserable until he changes his mind.
That's one way to do it. Sounds like throwing in the towel at first, but if their strategy was to shift the Overton Window, it might not be a bad plan to shift it right back.
I'm so tired of these people touching kids and then fucking with trans folks.
I mean it's pretty shit, but what are we gonna do, vote in the Republicans? I'm sure that will help trans people even more /s
Sadly, I don't have a bettet suggestion. This pro-Israel shit with dems is also a problem though. There's got to be a better way.
There’s a concept in psychodynamic psychology referred to as Thanatos, which is a subconscious death wish. Humans often work against their own best interests to accelerate their mortality.
There's a whole death cult based on that. They're called MAGA and they want everyone to die so they can be raptured.
I don't get the fixation on the topic from anyone. The trans community is so small and yet it gets a huge amount of political focus. Sure, Republicans are actively attempting to remove the rights of trans people but that statement applies equally to anyone who isn't them. Why let them control the conversation by focusing on that one group so much? It makes the average person think that the things Republicans are doing only impact groups they aren't part of and that is absolutely not the case.
For trans people, I absolutely understand the fixation, because it is their lives at stake. But even if judging on just the one issue, and with no actual good choice on it, there are still degrees of badness, and one candidate is likely much more of a threat than the other in a given race.
It's the same fixation people had with Gaza and gas prices and whether a candidate supports Brittney Spears. There are far too many single issue voters now and they are fucking up politics to the point that we have launched ourselves towards an Idiocracy at hyper speed.
Why? Because BOTH sides have been defunding education. And don't give me shit about how one side does it more than the other. I don't care.
Currently in the US trans people in federal prisons are forcibly detransitioned, trans minors can't access necessary healthcare, including the compromise option of puberty blockers, and "trans ideology" was included as one of the "biggest threats to america" in a terms of what the current administration is focusing on in the name of anti-terrorism. Saying that trying to improve that situation is "not high on your priorities" or "a major concern" just because trans people are a small part of the population (especially when discussing an article about the democratic party continuing to shift towards anti-trans language and policy) is, at best, extremely insensitive.
If you're not going to care about my life enough to think it's worth protecting, then I'm not going to extend that same courtesy to you.
And yet higher up you said it was the better choice to not support Kamala so the issue could move. So in effect you sacrificed countless Gazan lives no? Their lives weren't worth protecting in your own estimation.
No transphobe is capable of doing those necessary things.
The way I think about it, the trans suppression in the US is like an upstairs sink, clogged with the faucet on full.
Everything else is like a dryer fire in the basement. For sure, the sink is something that needs to be addressed. But right now, the fucking basement is on fire.
Unfortunately, not transphobic democrat is capable of putting out that fire. Saving democracy requires moral conviction and the willingness to pass unpopular laws for the greater good. Transphobe dems lack moral conviction. They're simply not the saviors of democracy you're hoping for.
Exactaly how I feel. They are being wronged by our government and we need to make things right, but there is so many more issues directly effecting every single person in this country that we need to be focusing on first. Sadly a lot people in the middle are uncomfortable with trans people and leaning too far into those issues right now just gives the pedo party more talking points to swing the middle away from sanity and into their wacky right wing shit.
I don't know, seems transgender people are gonna be fucked no matter which party wins
If we don't turn things around, literally everyone everywhere loses. Trans will go first, but then the rest of us lgbt, racial minorities, etc.
When all the toothless hillbillies have killed all lgbt, immigrants, religious/social minorities, they'll be left standing with empty magazines in their precious AR-15s wondering why everything still sucks.
The one tooth in front of the mouth still dangles and their finger-pointing pattern unrecognized. "Them white Christians are the wrong kind of Christians. Git 'em!"
Military is already doing it with Mormons. Nobody is safe.
I don't know why some humans have such an intrinsic need to hate other groups of humans but I wish they'd turn that hate unto billionaires
Is this gonna be the 2026 version of Gaza?
A deeply unpopular and morally bankrupt position that costs key votes for a Democratic candidate, and then leads to neoliberals blaming a minority group's lack of support for the candidate losing rather than the candidate choosing not to appeal to a seemingly very important chunk of their voting base? Maybe.
Do people not realize Republicans won in their messaging? Everything related to trans support is MUCH lower than it was before. The best democrats can do is dogwhistle support, because it's very unpopular right now, which it's horrible that's the case but thats not the fault of the politicians who are trying to improve things.
They won in their messaging because no one defended it and instead caved to support it.
Dems have lost in all messaging. They won’t push the quality of living and problems of capitalism, instead they agree to attack trans people.
There are a few exceptions, and they do well in their respective places when they actually push back. But most are cowards.
They didn't cave until they lost the messaging, and yes the messaging has been unbelievably bad. There's a series called the alt right playbook where one of the strategies is control the conversation, democrats are always playing defense saying no we don't want everyone to be transgender no we aren't giving 8 year olds hormones for no reason. That's just a losing strategy.
I'm not saying they couldn't be doing more, but it's like trying to stand up for black rights in an election in a community of racists, you're going to get swept by the guy who is openly racist. The media has massively failed us on the trans issue and now most Americans are anti trans, it sucks and I have trans friends who are super hurt by it, but I'm not going to let the fascist supporters win, when they are actively trying to kill Americans, and trans people, and the rest of the world.
You clearly don't understand how math works though. You can do what you want, but a non vote is the second most anti trans decision you can make in the general.
On one hand, you have a candidate that is anti trans in sports and on the other you have someone that wants to block hormone therapy, and child care, and wants to send trans people to mental institutions. You decision supports the latter.
Like I said, you must really hate trans people.
On one hand, you have a candidate that is anti trans in sports and on the other you have someone that wants to block hormone therapy, and child care, and wants to send trans people to mental institutions.
For some Republicans, sending them to mental institutions would be the milder end of what they want to do. Letting the 7MM and Project 2025 go buck-wild with this country will not spell good things, that is for sure.
Nothing self-proclaimed allies like more than lecturing trans people how stupid they are.
Serious question, not trying to argue, I just want to understand: What do you expect to gain by not voting/voting third party in this particular election? Is it a matter of principle for you, or is there another reason? And are you really unafraid of having more Republican representatives vs Democrats?
I ask because this choice has always seemed like an obvious one to me, but I'll admit I'm looking at the question through a lens of cold logic. Also while I am a minority, I'm not trans, so I assume there is a perspective here that I'm not seeing.
The reason you can't understand this issue is because you are incapable of looking more than one election ahead into the future.
but I'll admit I'm looking at the question through a lens of cold logic
No, you're looking at it through the lens of propaganda. It is not cold logic to believe that a politician in the Democrat party is inherently obviously better than a politician in the Republican party. The two parties are PR campaigns of the rich elite. The psychographics of the voting population are broadly segmentable into groupings that can be assigned to one party or the other and remain consistent enough to fit their campaign. Using cold logic, the Ds and the Rs are sharing the responsibility of maintaining an ultraviolent genocidal oligarchic international EuroCentric Christian white supremacist patriarchal empire.
Obama is literally out here this week saying the Ds need to stop campaigning on material conditions and focus on moral narratives about we can all live together in this country. He and Biden were the ones that created the policy framework, headcount, budgets, and private contractor relationships that Donald Trump is using to terrorize cities with ICE. Obama/Biden appointed the exact same man that Trump appointed to be deportation czar. And Obama came after Bush 2 but continued Bush 2's war campaign to destroy 7 countries - Libya was the 6th that Bush couldn't get to, so Obama and Clinton took care of destroying that sovereign nation. Iran was the 7th, and Obama couldn't get to it so he negotiated the JCPOA and then Trump demonstrated that the military strategists were already planning to destroy Iran they just needed more time.
What else does cold logic tell us? Did Biden know Trump was a fascist threat? Sure seemed like he was talking about it mostly openly. What did Biden do? Well, he had the full unredacted Epstein Files. He could have launched a federal criminal investigation into Trump. But he didn't. He just sat on it. And then he fucked the primaries. He did nothing at all to stop Trump, to reduce his available toolset, to play politics. Nothing. Biden saw Trump with a knife and a bunch of people saying "he's got a knife" and said "watch out for that guy, he's got a knife" and then left.
What else does cold logic tell us? Corporate profits are higher under Democrats. Democrats regularly say one thing on TV and then vote with their Republican colleagues. Democrats support mass domestic surveillance, Israel genociding Gaza, increased military spending, increased police spending, using police against the homeless, mass recialized incarceration, and yes, they even support anti-trans sentiment.
That's logic. Blue no matter who is not logic, it's emotional.
Those are all fair points; I can't argue any of them, at least not with my level of understanding. I would even agree that Republicans and establishment/neoliberalism Democrats are ultimately rolling up to the same folks to get their marching orders, even if their outward facade paints them as opposing factions. I would argue, though, that while the Democrats you describe represent the same brand of fascism as the Republicans they (ostensibly) rail against, they do push it in a noticeably slower, less heavy-handed way than Republicans do. That doesn't sound like much of a benefit, but I would think it offers progressives a chance to shift the Overton window back to the left during the eras when Democrats are in power; more of a chance than they'd have during a Republican administration like this one anyway, where people are constantly overwhelmed with the avalanche of blatant corruption and intentional cruelty directed toward them. A slower-moving disaster is an objectively better situation than a fast-moving one, because you at least have more time to try to stop it or get out of the way. That's the cold logic I was referring to in my original comment.
But like I said, I'm not really here to argue. I just wanted to ask a question, the one you skipped right over: What do you expect to gain by either not voting or voting third party in this particular election? You've given a salient explanation of why Democrats aren't much better than Republicans as leaders, but you haven't explained why picking an unlikely third option (or not picking one at all) is the best choice.
So let's answer your question. I expect to gain nothing. Which is exactly what I expect to gain if I do vote for them.
There's a sense in which the process of "power" shifting from one brand to the other brand is much like people buying store brand vs name brand of the same product made by the same manufacturer. People buy the one or the other en masse because of larger economic trends driving their buying behavior. Individuals making deliberate choices to "not pay the brand tax" is such a small component of aggregate buying behavior it's not even worth modeling.
In this way, the old adage "it's the economy, stupid" is saying that people don't really win elections because conscientious voters who are thoughtful and strategic do things - people win elections because of larger economic and social trends. Yes, in individual small swing districts conscientious voting can sometimes become large enough to have a measurable impact, but not in most races, not in most districts, and even among swing districts, not that often.
Instead what's happening is the 2 brands work to temper the psychological needs of various groups of the American population, serving to create us/them dynamics within the population that serves to divide them against each other and enlist them in maintaining the very powers who oppress them.
Like what happens in these discussions. We are all being oppressed by the entire political system, and yet some of us believe that others of us are paid Russian or Chinese trolls or that we're actually Republicans because we are trying to keep the focus on the total political system. What we need is to band together as a single group, not as separate groups who fight on the terrain of ballots, but a single unified group of the people against the oligarchs and that means fighting against their mechanisms of control. Party politics is one of those mechanisms.
I had zero doubt that you would!
And yet, prominent, knowledgeable political thinkers within the trans community, people who obviously understand the issues affecting our community better than you do, are saying that Gavin Newsom-types are so bad for us that we're at a point where we can't vote for them in good conscience.
And then you waddle along in here and say that's "dumb". 👏👏👏
The transgenders are stupid and you are smart. If you were our leader we'd probably all be fine, and we'd don't he stuff you wanted us to do.
Do you think trans people all get together and say "wow that guy's really fucking us out there, but we gotta suck it up or else it's gonna get even worse"? Is that the vibe, in your experience as an esteemed ally to whom the trans community is forever indebted? Or do you think maybe we all want Gavin Newsom and Rob Sand to get fucked in the ass and die, on a level you can't comprehend because you aren't personally affected and your self-proclaimed allyship is cat diarrhea?
Look back on your stupid comment in ten years and let me know how well it aged, liberal.
Vote third party. This is a good place for winning as third party. Local and state elections hell even in Congress independents can win and we should be pushing out more Democrats and Republicans as possible.
Only time to vote for a Democrat is in a primary and only for progressives. Also unfortunately during presidential runs. At least until Democracy fails or we do revolution.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Ranked choice voting so we stop having to pick terrible Democrats. Gaining prevalence in local elections!
save