Democrats Need BTE

[Suckrates]

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

What if Pete and Chasten run together?   At least that way we can find out which one is which.

Pete actually looks well fucked, doesn't he?

Sis, dont "stereotype"...... I am going with BOTH VERS !   👬

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Sis, dont "stereotype"...... I am going with BOTH VERS !   👬

With Pete and Chasten, fine.

But let's not pretend your public service with Zohran is versatile, Sis.

I like to think of that relationship as Christian.

You know it is better to give then to receive.

And he is trying to help those on the bottom.

[RockyRoadTravel]

On 8/11/2026 at 7:52 AM, stevenkesslar said:

With Pete and Chasten, fine.

But let's not pretend your public service with Zohran is versatile, Sis.

I like to think of that relationship as Christian.

You know it is better to give then to receive.

And he is trying to help those on the bottom.

Any BDE thoughts on David Crawley in Wisconsin?  He has got to lose the mustache. It was interesting that neither Sanders nor AOC endorsed Hong, would that have made a difference for her campaign? I expect it was more to do with newness and inexperience with such a high profile election than it did with policy issues.  The Thanksgiving comment was made the same day that Hong had spent in meetings with Native Americans.  Though a stupid comment, I can see where the knee jerk emotional blurting out of canceling Thanksgiving came from.  Political candidates, which I don't think she was at the time, aren't allowed to make knee jerk emotional missives. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Any BDE thoughts on David Crawley in Wisconsin?  He has got to lose the mustache. It was interesting that neither Sanders nor AOC endorsed Hong, would that have made a difference for her campaign? I expect it was more to do with newness and inexperience with such a high profile election than it did with policy issues.  The Thanksgiving comment was made the same day that Hong had spent in meetings with Native Americans.  Though a stupid comment, I can see where the knee jerk emotional blurting out of canceling Thanksgiving came from.  Political candidates, which I don't think she was at the time, aren't allowed to make knee jerk emotional missives. 

 

I'm surprised.  And delighted.   I know nothing about Crawley.  But I wasn't wildly impressed with Hong.

If you listen to her side by side with El-Sayed, I think the difference is clear.  Or, just so I don't sound sexist, put Hong side by side with Elizabeth Warren.

El-Sayed is usually meticulously on message.  The thing that bothers me about him, which is a guy thing, is he can't help letting his vanity seep through.  And making unforced errors like calling Fetterman an "asshole."   Or, worse, telling an opponent that Muslims hate him.  It's guy stuff.  That said, there were guys who loved that Trump was a felon.  So it goes to your point about testosterone.  Arguably Ossoff has more BDE because he doesn't have to show it off.

Hong had a hard time staying on message, at least on the clips I watched.  When she tried to explain weird ideas like cancelling Thanksgiving, she just said more weird things.  Add a limited history of bipolar disorder and mental health issues, and it was easy to wonder if something was just a bit off.

Maybe it is sexist.  But being cocky is okay, and arguably desirable for a certain demographic.  Being weird is not.  Others noticed.  Sanders and AOC did not embrace her, for whatever reason.  They probably don't want "democratic socialism" to be associated with losing general elections.

More broadly, this could not be clearer to all Democrats.  If we want to win, we need BTE, BDE, and SME (Small Money Energy).  We had two very close races, which one progressive barely won and one progressive barely lost.  If El-Sayed wins the fight to get money out of politics advances.

There is some history here I love.  In the 1980's no one thought Paul Wellstone could be elected to the Senate.  Too progressive.  Peggy Flanagan comes right out of that tradition.  She taught at Camp Wellstone, where Walz was a student.  Walz is a great example of how to win.  When he won the Southern Minnesota purplish house seat where Wellstone taught college, he was one of the most pro-gun moderate Democrats.  When he became Governor, he ran and won and governed as a progressive.  Now his Lt. Guv can run in a primary as a progressive and kick her moderate opponent's ass.  And it kind of gets buried in the news.  Because now Hong and El-Sayed are the cutting edge.  

So things are moving to the left.  With a focus on being able to win general elections.  If liberals and moderates can't unite, we lose.  If we unite, we win.

I watched a WaPo interview of Ruy Teixeira.  Who I think now is persona non grata for saying things most Democrats don't want to hear.  He seems certain this democratic socialism project is going to fail, and just make Democrats more unelectable in general.  And who am I to quarrel with the guy who wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority?

That said, one person who can dispute Teixeira is his co-author John Judis.  Who was and is a democratic socialist.  I think Judis would agree with Teixeira that Democrats have to focus on economic populism.  The old time labor stuff.  And ditch the woke college student stuff like LatinX and open borders.   

I don't think Judis is as pessimistic as Teixeira.  Teixeira comes out of think tanks.  Judis has always been a journalist, starting at democratic socialist In These Times.  I think he is much more connected to, and appreciative of, grassroots movements.  

A few other factoids.  If Crowley and Florida Republican Byron Donalds wins, we will have two more Black Governors.  Donalds will be the first Black Republican Governor.  So identity politics advances, even covertly among Republicans.  

And speaking of Native Americans, Flanagan and Alaska's Peltola would be the first two Native American women in the US Senate.  Deb Haaland may at the same time be New Mexico's first Native American Guv.   

How woke is that?  But, please.  Don't call it woke.

This Minnesota ticket sets the tone.  Amy Klo is definitely a moderate, and Flanagan is definitely a progressive.  Run and win, which they will.  Sends exactly the right message and tone.

John and I ran into our fantastic Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan and her daughter looking stylish as ever at the MN State Fair!

They won't cancel Thanksgiving.  Or the Minnesota State Fair.

[RockyRoadTravel]

8 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

I'm surprised.  And delighted.   I know nothing about Crawley.  But I wasn't wildly impressed with Hong.

If you listen to her side by side with El-Sayed, I think the difference is clear.  Or, just so I don't sound sexist, put Hong side by side with Elizabeth Warren.

El-Sayed is usually meticulously on message.  The thing that bothers me about him, which is a guy thing, is he can't help letting his vanity seep through.  And making unforced errors like calling Fetterman an "asshole."   Or, worse, telling an opponent that Muslims hate him.  It's guy stuff.  That said, there were guys who loved that Trump was a felon.  So it goes to your point about testosterone.  Arguably Ossoff has more BDE because he doesn't have to show it off.

Hong had a hard time staying on message, at least on the clips I watched.  When she tried to explain weird ideas like cancelling Thanksgiving, she just said more weird things.  Add a limited history of bipolar disorder and mental health issues, and it was easy to wonder if something was just a bit off.

Maybe it is sexist.  But being cocky is okay, and arguably desirable for a certain demographic.  Being weird is not.  Others noticed.  Sanders and AOC did not embrace her, for whatever reason.  They probably don't want "democratic socialism" to be associated with losing general elections.

More broadly, this could not be clearer to all Democrats.  If we want to win, we need BTE, BDE, and SME (Small Money Energy).  We had two very close races, which one progressive barely won and one progressive barely lost.  If El-Sayed wins the fight to get money out of politics advances.

There is some history here I love.  In the 1980's no one thought Paul Wellstone could be elected to the Senate.  Too progressive.  Peggy Flanagan comes right out of that tradition.  She taught at Camp Wellstone, where Walz was a student.  Walz is a great example of how to win.  When he won the Southern Minnesota purplish house seat where Wellstone taught college, he was one of the most pro-gun moderate Democrats.  When he became Governor, he ran and won and governed as a progressive.  Now his Lt. Guv can run in a primary as a progressive and kick her moderate opponent's ass.  And it kind of gets buried in the news.  Because now Hong and El-Sayed are the cutting edge.  

So things are moving to the left, with a focus on being able to win general elections.  If liberals and moderates can't unite, we lose.  If we unite, we win.

I watched a WaPo interview of Ruy Teixeira, who I think now is persona non grata for saying things most Democrats don't want to hear.  He seems certain this democratic socialism project is going to fail, and just make Democrats more unelectable in general.  And who am I to quarrel with the guy who wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority?

That said, one person who can dispute Teixeira is co-author John Judis, who was and is a democratic socialist.  I think Judis would agree with Teixeira that Democrats have to focus on economic populism.  The old time labor stuff.  And ditch the woke college student stuff like LatinX and open borders.   I don't think he is as pessimistic as Teixeira.  Teixeira comes out of think tanks.  Judis has always been a journalist, starting at In These Times.  But I think he is much more connected to, and appreciative of, grassroots movements.  

A few other factoids.  If Crowley and Florida Republican Byron Donalds wins, we will have two more Black Governors.  Donalds will be the first Black Republican Governor.  So identity politics advances, even covertly among Republicans.  

And speaking of Native Americans, Flanagan and Alaska's Peltola would be the first two Native American women in the US Senate.  Deb Haaland may at the same time by New Mexico's first Native American Guv.   How woke is that.  But, please.  Don't call it woke.

This Minnesota ticket sets the tone.  Amy Klo is definitely a moderate, and Flanagan is definitely a progressive.  Run and win, which they will.  Sends exactly the right message and tone.

John and I ran into our fantastic Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan and her daughter looking stylish as ever at the MN State Fair!

They won't cancel Thanksgiving.  Or the Minnesota State Fair.

I'm having a similar but opposite reaction to El-Sayed that I had with Tim Walz. The more I hear them speak, the less I want to hear them speak.  For different reasons.  I'm a MDE guy.  Tim was too SDE and El-Sayed is too BDE for me. 

The El-Sayed message is clear, which is good. He'll need to be very clear to cut through the bullshit that is going to be thrown at him in truck loads.  Confidence is very attractive, arrogance is not. 

On some visceral level at the back of our minds in casting our support for a male politician were considering "does this guy appeal to me?".   Tim Walz - no.  El Sayed - no.  Chris Murphy - he's got a certain dad bod energy that is confident and not arrogant.  

[stevenkesslar]

33 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Chris Murphy - he's got a certain dad bod energy that is confident and not arrogant.  

 

 

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

23 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

 

 

 

woof

[stevenkesslar]

Well it looks like Democrats will get the close Senate race we voted for in Michigan.

The four latest polls show El-Sayed behind by an average of four points, with one poll from a few weeks ago showing him ten points behind Rogers.

There is a clear polling contrast between moderates and the progressives that are pushing the fringe.  Cook Political Report now lists both Georgia and North Carolina as "Leans Democrat."  Michigan is the only currently blue state considered a tossup.  The other three tossups are Maine, Alaska, and Ohio, all currently with Republican Senators of course.

I have no regrets about this.  Enough progressives won primaries in states or House districts that could go either way that it will be a good test of the theory that progressives can win in swing races.   It will also test the theory that, in order to win, progressive and democratic socialist candidates will have to moderate and explain themselves to swing voters.  

I was actually surprised when I look at the GovTrack ideology rankings that Warnock is the most conservative Democratic Senator,.  And Ossoff is not far from Warnock.  That no doubt helps explain why they can win in a state that is as much red as purple at the state legislative level.  

While I am a Berniecrat at heart, I'm already reconciled to the idea that Democrats will nominate a Presidential candidate that is a moderate in 2028.  I think 2016 and 2020 proved that progressives just don't have the votes at the national level.  Some "new younger Biden" will come along.  Meaning someone who positions themselves to the right of all the progressives on the left.  If I had to guess now it could be Buttigieg or Ossoff.  Or Warnock, if he runs.

As much as I like Gay Power and BDE, I think the idea of "The Rev" running for President after eight years of Trump would be healing.  Literally.  I don't think its possible if Harris runs. If she doesn't, who knows?

Here's Fareed's take on why Democrats need to moderate on the culture wars.  I agree with him.  I think the fact that we lost narrowly to Trump twice proves both that the culture war issues are hurting Democrats.  And that if we nominate a moderate for POTUS we can win.

That said, I don't want to go through another Democratic Presidency where a few "moderates" like Sinema and Manchin derail everything a moderate President like Biden is fighting for.  While we may not be able to have a progressive President, packing the House and Senate with progressives who can win will help when it comes to actually legislating an economic agenda.

And I don't fully agree with Fareed.  Meaning even if Democrats can't moderate enough on "woke" issues to win Missouri or Montana, I think pushing for a populist economic agenda can go a long way.

Fareed  makes great points about how younger people are the ones most getting screwed.  Had Sinema and Manchin supported those expanded child tax credits, which helped tens of millions of working class families, I think Harris could have won based on that one change alone.   She could have argued that Democrats actually did something to help with inflation.  And cut child poverty in half.  The fact that Democrats could not even keep that victory, and Kamala paraded around with Liz Cheney, says a lot about what Democrats should NOT do next time.

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

8 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Well it looks like Democrats will get the close Senate race we voted for in Michigan.

The four latest polls show El-Sayed behind by an average of four points, with one poll from a few weeks ago showing him ten points behind Rogers.

There is a clear polling contrast between moderates and the progressives that are pushing the fringe.  Cook Political Report now lists both Georgia and North Carolina as "Leans Democrat."  Michigan is the only currently blue state considered a tossup.  The other three tossups are Maine, Alaska, and Ohio, all currently with Republican Senators of course.

I have no regrets about this.  Enough progressives won primaries in states or House districts that could go either way that it will be a good test of the theory that progressives can win in swing races.   It will also test the theory that, in order to win, progressive and democratic socialist candidates will have to moderate and explain themselves to swing voters.  

I was actually surprised when I look at the GovTrack ideology rankings that Warnock is the most conservative Democratic Senator,.  And Ossoff is not far from Warnock.  That no doubt helps explain why they can win in a state that is as much red as purple at the state legislative level.  

While I am a Berniecrat at heart, I'm already reconciled to the idea that Democrats will nominate a Presidential candidate that is a moderate in 2028.  I think 2016 and 2020 proved that progressives just don't have the votes at the national level.  Some "new younger Biden" will come along.  Meaning someone who positions themselves to the right of all the progressives on the left.  If I had to guess now it could be Buttigieg or Ossoff.  Or Warnock, if he runs.

As much as I like Gay Power and BDE, I think the idea of "The Rev" running for President after eight years of Trump would be healing.  Literally.  I don't think its possible if Harris runs. If she doesn't, who knows?

Here's Fareed's take on why Democrats need to moderate on the culture wars.  I agree with him.  I think the fact that we lost narrowly to Trump twice proves both that the culture war issues are hurting Democrats.  And that if we nominate a moderate for POTUS we can win.

That said, I don't want to go through another Democratic Presidency where a few "moderates" like Sinema and Manchin derail everything a moderate President like Biden is fighting for.  While we may not be able to have a progressive President, packing the House and Senate with progressives who can win will help when it comes to actually legislating an economic agenda.

And I don't fully agree with Fareed.  Meaning even if Democrats can't moderate enough on "woke" issues to win Missouri or Montana, I think pushing for a populist economic agenda can go a long way.

Fareed  makes great points about how younger people are the ones most getting screwed.  Had Sinema and Manchin supported those expanded child tax credits, which helped tens of millions of working class families, I think Harris could have won based on that one change alone.   She could have argued that Democrats actually did something to help with inflation.  And cut child poverty in half.  The fact that Democrats could not even keep that victory, and Kamala paraded around with Liz Cheney, says a lot about what Democrats should NOT do next time.

 

Parading with Liz Cheney who was clearly identified with prosecuting the January 6th coup attempt was fine.  The late endorsement from Iraq war hawk dick Cheney was not a good thing.  Made me think if I was in the wrong room. 

[Goober]

How should Dems respond to the trans issue, specifically mtf in women's sports? I don't know why this is even a major issue. It's an issue to be addressed, but repugs have made it one of their main campaign issues, and the Dems not only let this happen but seem to have been caught flat-footed on it.

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, Goober said:

How should Dems respond to the trans issue, specifically mtf in women's sports? I don't know why this is even a major issue. It's an issue to be addressed, but repugs have made it one of their main campaign issues, and the Dems not only let this happen but seem to have been caught flat-footed on it.

Its only an issue for hateful, homophobia MAGA, not regular, normal Republicans.    Its only a MAGA agenda thats driving the Trump autocracy,  as if they are the ONLY Americans whose needs and thoughts matter.   And Trump only WANTS to be a leader of MAGA, not every American, because normal Americans would never allow him to get away with his shit.    MAGA encourages and enables him,  which is why he wants them to know he basically has them on "retainer" if they act on his behalf,  they could become rich.   MAGA seems to understand MONEY !     

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, Goober said:

How should Dems respond to the trans issue, specifically mtf in women's sports? I don't know why this is even a major issue. It's an issue to be addressed, but repugs have made it one of their main campaign issues, and the Dems not only let this happen but seem to have been caught flat-footed on it.

 

Great question.  Simple answer and long answer.

Simple answer:  Empathy.   

Long answer:  I think there are three culture war issues that are toxic to Democrats.  1) Trans/forcing boys to be girls,  2)  Defund the police,   3) Open the borders and let rapists in.   

Those are arguably Trump's three greatest hits for years now.  They got him in the White House.  Twice, by my count.  "High prices" no longer works for him like in 2024, since his dumb ass failures are the cause of high prices.  So they are pivoting to "communism."  Happily, I don't think voters will somehow be convinced that Trump's high prices are okay, since Democratic communism is worse.  🤔

You asked about trans, of course.  I think that issue more than any is crying for a "Sister Souljah" moment.  And girls' sports is the ideal place to focus it.   

Republicans obviously love the issue because it is an 80/20 issue.  Pew says 2 in 3 Americans favor a legal ban on trans participation in girls' sports, and about 80 % of Americans feel uncomfortable with it.  By one count last year there were 745 anti-trans bills in state legislatures.  It is a wildly popular and effective way for sporting Republicans to pummel Democrats to a bloody pulp.  For sports betting, this is awesome.  Because on this issue Democrats will lose pretty much every fucking time.

Some Democrat running for President should take a pretty hard line position that some of this stuff went too far.  And the ideal person to do that is Pete Buttigieg.  Since it would burnish his "reasonable moderate" credentials.  Someone like Pete can do it with a tone of empathy.  Of course we want to help these kids.  Of course they deserve our empathy.  

Newsom has been working this issue of trans in sports.  He was Mayor Same Sex Marriage, so he also has empathy credentials to talk about this.  And there is a "fairness" difference he has focused on.  Giving marriage to Gay men essentially said we don't want to take anything away from marriage, or Straight couples.  We actually want to add to it.  An equivalent would be having trans sports teams.  Which we do, of course.  But that doesn't really solve the issue of whether a lone trans woman or girl can compete or join a team.

The nice thing about Trump 2.0 is we now know that if we want 100 % of an issue, we will actually get 0 %.  At least once the reaction grows strong enough to elect someone like Trump. 

You want open borders?  Great.  We'll deport your nephew, who has a child and works at a construction company.  That's what Hispanics in Texas are learning.  You want no restrictions on trans women in sports?  Great.  We'll have 1000 fucking bills and talk EVERY FUCKING DAY about how these trans people are a MENACE to your daughter.  How is that better for trans people and immigrants?

Jon Ossoff created a "how to" guidebook on this, as far as it goes. He voted against a federal ban on trans women and girls participating in female sports.  He says his support for the LGBTQ community is "ironclad."  So he framed it as keep the federal government out of these decisions.  If this was supposed to give Republicans a way to make Ossoff look extreme, it's not working.  But it begs the question of who should decide, and what limits are okay.  My own impression is that "local control" and "eligibility standards" are a moderate path that neither bans something completely, nor condones something 100 %.  Something like this from SF.gov, which sounds Ossoff-like:

Quote

When trans people do participate in professional and competitive sports, their participation is carefully regulated by national and international standards to ensure it is fair. We should not be looking to politicians or pundits - many of whom have never been to a women’s sporting event - for guidance on how to regulate women’s sports.  It’s important that we consider the opinions of experts and, more importantly, follow the science.

Same thing with the border.  The happy news is that perceived Biden "open borders" led to Trump "ICE bullets in American bodies," which horrified middle America.  Democrats now have an opening for a reasonable compromise once we take power again.

My personal experience, anecdotally, is this  inflames moderate Moms in particular. 

I had a fascinating dinner with the wife of one of my nephews, with her two teen daughters present.  She knows I am a "Gay activist" type.  So she basically interrogated me.  And it was clear that all this stuff about doing stuff to teens without parental knowledge or consent makes her feel Democrats are nuts.  It fits right in of course that she is a quasi-anti-vaxxer who likes RFK, Jr.  And probably there is no way for a Democrat to win her vote.  But she lives in a Southern state, and she could probably go for somebody like Andy Beshear. 

All that said, we have a close relationship.  And she and her Mom,, who is even more conservative, are very comfortable with me being Gay.  That said, while we were at dinner, she said, "I would have a real problem if one of my daughters turned out to be Gay."  Happily, one of her daughters is marrying a guy next month.  Can't wait for the wedding.

Empathy and tolerance were the cards the LGBTQ movement played expertly to win legal same sex marriage.  I think a majority of Americans, including many conservatives, are open to empathy on this issue.  They are not open to what seem like crazy and radical ideas to them.  Some smart and empathetic politician at the national level, like Pete Buttigieg or Jon Ossoff, is going to need to figure this out.  The polling and my personal experience, of which I cited just one example, align with the idea that a lot of moderate Moms see this as textbook evidence of how Democrats are way too far out there.  

Great question.  We should be asking questions like this a lot.  Rant over.

 

[Suckrates]

11 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

Great question.  Simple answer and long answer.

Simple answer:  Empathy.   

Long answer:  I think there are three culture war issues that are toxic to Democrats.  1) Trans/forcing boys to be girls,  2)  Defund the police,   3) Open the borders and let rapists in.   

Those are arguably Trump's three greatest hits for years now.  They got him in the White House.  Twice, by my count.  "High prices" no longer works for him like in 2024, since his dumb ass failures are the cause of high prices.  So they are pivoting to "communism."  Happily, I don't think voters will somehow be convinced that Trump's high prices are okay, since Democratic communism is worse.  🤔

You asked about trans, of course.  I think that issue more than any is crying for a "Sister Souljah" moment.  And girls' sports is the ideal place to focus it.   

Republicans obviously love the issue because it is an 80/20 issue.  Pew says 2 in 3 Americans favor a legal ban on trans participation in girls' sports, and about 80 % of Americans feel uncomfortable with it.  By one count last year there were 745 anti-trans bills in state legislatures.  It is a wildly popular and effective way for sporting Republicans to pummel Democrats to a bloody pulp.  For sports betting, this is awesome.  Because on this issue Democrats will lose pretty much every fucking time.

Some Democrat running for President should take a pretty hard line position that some of this stuff went too far.  And the ideal person to do that is Pete Buttigieg.  Since it would burnish his "reasonable moderate" credentials.  Someone like Pete can do it with a tone of empathy.  Of course we want to help these kids.  Of course they deserve our empathy.  

Newsom has been working this issue of trans in sports.  He was Mayor Same Sex Marriage, so he also has empathy credentials to talk about this.  And there is a "fairness" difference he has focused on.  Giving marriage to Gay men essentially said we don't want to take anything away from marriage, or Straight couples.  We actually want to add to it.  An equivalent would be having trans sports teams.  Which we do, of course.  But that doesn't really solve the issue of whether a lone trans woman or girl can compete or join a team.

The nice thing about Trump 2.0 is we now know that if we want 100 % of an issue, we will actually get 0 %.  At least once the reaction grows strong enough to elect someone like Trump. 

You want open borders?  Great.  We'll deport your nephew, who has a child and works at a construction company.  That's what Hispanics in Texas are learning.  You want no restrictions on trans women in sports?  Great.  We'll have 1000 fucking bills and talk EVERY FUCKING DAY about how these trans people are a MENACE to your daughter.  How is that better for trans people and immigrants?

Jon Ossoff created a "how to" guidebook on this, as far as it goes. He voted against a federal ban on trans women and girls participating in female sports.  He says his support for the LGBTQ community is "ironclad."  So he framed it as keep the federal government out of these decisions.  If this was supposed to give Republicans a way to make Ossoff look extreme, it's not working.  But it begs the question of who should decide, and what limits are okay.  My own impression is that "local control" and "eligibility standards" are a moderate path that neither bans something completely, nor condones something 100 %.  Something like this from SF.gov, which sounds Ossoff-like:

Same thing with the border.  The happy news is that perceived Biden "open borders" led to Trump "ICE bullets in American bodies," which horrified middle America.  Democrats now have an opening for a reasonable compromise once we take power again.

My personal experience, anecdotally, is this  inflames moderate Moms in particular. 

I had a fascinating dinner with the wife of one of my nephews, with her two teen daughters present.  She knows I am a "Gay activist" type.  So she basically interrogated me.  And it was clear that all this stuff about doing stuff to teens without parental knowledge or consent makes her feel Democrats are nuts.  It fits right in of course that she is a quasi-anti-vaxxer who likes RFK, Jr.  And probably there is no way for a Democrat to win her vote.  But she lives in a Southern state, and she could probably go for somebody like Andy Beshear. 

All that said, we have a close relationship.  And she and her Mom,, who is even more conservative, are very comfortable with me being Gay.  That said, while we were at dinner, she said, "I would have a real problem if one of my daughters turned out to be Gay."  Happily, one of her daughters is marrying a guy next month.  Can't wait for the wedding.

Empathy and tolerance were the cards the LGBTQ movement played expertly to win legal same sex marriage.  I think a majority of Americans, including many conservatives, are open to empathy on this issue.  They are not open to what seem like crazy and radical ideas to them.  Some smart and empathetic politician at the national level, like Pete Buttigieg or Jon Ossoff, is going to need to figure this out.  The polling and my personal experience, of which I cited just one example, align with the idea that a lot of moderate Moms see this as textbook evidence of how Democrats are way too far out there.  

Great question.  We should be asking questions like this a lot.  Rant over.

 

 

Sis, with all kind and due respect, not everything requires such an analytical rant......  This ongoing MAGA issue of trans is basically their knee-jerk reaction to THEIR idea that men in girls sports are basically "sick" dudes with cocks being female imposters crashing womens sports where they have some physical advantage....  I really dont believe they go thru a fraction of the thought process you have laid out here?   All they know and believe is the dudes are mentally sick,  just as they see drag queens and other dudes that take cock up the butt....   Its all the same to them ......F*GS !     So trying to apply some degree of rational to their position is a fruitless and useless exercise IMO....   They will NEVER see it any other way than a "sickness"......and not in any world will it ever be OK for them.     I honestly dont believe many minds are ever changed by all the politician rally stump speeches.   People just attend to find and hear rhetoric that already comports with their own,  and that will be the person they often will vote for.....  The people still supporting Trump have always held the beliefs they hold, and Trump is their guy that gives license and justification to those beliefs, which the majority of Americans DO NOT share.....   

Sometimes a reason is simple and obvious, and all the debating is unnecessary,  as much as I LOVE when you rant......

 

[stevenkesslar]

2 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

This ongoing MAGA issue of trans is basically their knee-jerk reaction to THEIR idea that men in girls sports are basically "sick" dudes with cocks being female imposters crashing womens sports where they have some physical advantage.... 

Proof of concept.

Buddy Carter even believes there's only two genders.

It's a really stupid ad.  Happily, Buddy Carter got nowhere with it.  Couldn't even win him a Republican primary.  He came in third place.  Loser!

So, for the type of MAGA diehards you are talking about, SIs, we agree.  They're redneck assholes.  Trump turds.  Stupid bigoted dumb fucks.

With those jerks, I just have my fairy godmother show up, wave her wand, and repeat three times, "Turn to shit!  Turn to shit!  Turn to shit!"

They ain't worth the time of intelligent women with lots of cocks to suck, like you and me.

 

Now, speaking of cocks.  And not to be too analytical.  But I know you excel at math, Sis.  Especially when it comes to counting to 12 or so inches.

So here is a simple math problem.

80 % of voters either support a ban on trans women and girls participating in female sports (about 66 %), or feel uncomfortable with such participation (14 % or so).  Meanwhile, Trump has never won 50 % of the vote running for POTUS.

What percentage of the total American electorate did not vote for Trump, does not identify with MAGA, but still either supports a trans ban, or feels uncomfortable with trans women and girls in female sports.

1.  0 %

2.  100 %

3.  30 %

If everyone who opposed Democrats on this issue was a fervent Trump/MAGA piece of shit, I'd agree with you.  Hillary did not help herself in 2016 by calling these people "irredeemable" in public.  But here on the internet, we Sisters can be honest.  Empathy only gets us so far.

Problem is there are a lot of people who are not Trump voters who are against us on this issue.  Analyze that and get back to me.

[RockyRoadTravel]

4 hours ago, Goober said:

How should Dems respond to the trans issue, specifically mtf in women's sports? I don't know why this is even a major issue. It's an issue to be addressed, but repugs have made it one of their main campaign issues, and the Dems not only let this happen but seem to have been caught flat-footed on it.

[stevenkesslar]

41 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

as much as I LOVE when you rant.....

So here is another rant, since you love them.

I'll just post the article and let it do the ranting - or research - for me.

How Marriage Equality Supporters Beat The ”Princess” Ad

Marriage equality–related campaigns won in four states this month. The victories, in part, came after a yearlong, behind-the-scenes national research effort.

Note that is from 2012. And I've posted it several times before.  But it's the best article I've ever read on how queers won the battle of the year decade century millenium.  

My own view is that on trans sports we are actually closer to the 1990s and Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton tried to do something to help LGBTQ people that helped him win in 1992.  It blew up in his face, and led many Gay men to view him as a traitor.  But it was all about math.  About 50 % of Americans opposed Gays in the military. Let alone same sex marriage.  It took two decades, and a ton of analysis and organizing, to win.

And the "analysis" actually supports what you are saying.  "Analysis" like saying "Gays deserve fairness" or "Gays want basic rights" was necessary, but not sufficient.  What worked better, particularly for moderates, was heart over head.  Feelings.  We're just guys who fall in love with guys and want to be able to be committed to them.  For life.  Because we love them.  That's what worked.