2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[superrific]

If the Democrats stopped supporting trans people's rights then they should rightfully just give up and stop existing altogether. It would ruin them for generations. Why would anyone support them, knowing that they'd be willing to abandon their principles the second the worst people in the world, who would not ever vote for them anyway, started making a stink? If you win elections running on a platform that Republicans like, and vote on issues the way Republicans would, why bother to be a Democrat?

This can't possibly be correct. There's far more at stake in our politics than the rights of trans people. Platforms have many different planks, For instance, the rights of gay people. And minorities. If we could ensure a Kamala victory by passing a "no trans surgeries anywhere" at the federal level, it would be clearly worth it because the consequences of a Trump victory would a) be terrible for trans people anyway and b) lead to the mass deportations, concentration camps, infinite corruption, destruction of alliances, etc.

In other words, I'm positing an entirely plausible scenario in which the interests of Hispanic people and trans people are in tension or even opposed. Examples like this are extremely common in our history -- gay rights in the 70s and 80s being one of them (i.e. if Dems fully embraced gay people, it would be the end of further progress on civil rights for minorities). And in such an environment, it is just not realistic to say, "Dems have to do the right thing" because there's not a right course of action.

 

[rodoheel]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

I think you're taking the wrong message from this. If it wasn't trans rights, it would be something else - immigrants or CRT or whatever. It's all just a pretext. Conservative voters just have this general feeling that American culture is different than it used to be, and in a worse way - too black/brown. too foreign, too queer, too urban, too oversexed, too whatever. The individual issues are just the scapegoat du jour. if you made the trans issue go "poof" tomorrow, we would still be in exactly in the same place, and the people screeching about trans rights would just be doing the same screeching about a different issue.

 

[rodoheel]

The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely.

Can you explain why you think this is true? I'm not really seeing what support there is for this idea that Kamala is more likely to see her lead increase than decrease over the coming weeks.

 

[lawtig02]

Can you explain why you think this is true? I'm not really seeing what support there is for this idea that Kamala is more likely to see her lead increase than decrease over the coming weeks.

1. Anyone willing to vote for the human pile of excrement that is Trump has already decided to do so.

2. Kamala is still relatively unknown, and as we get closer to 11/5, the people who pay no attention to politics will eventually start looking at what she’s saying. Her very moderate platform is likely to be reassuring to them.

3. The economy is good. Trump can say it’s terrible all he wants, but the people who aren’t already voting for him can look with their own eyes. It could be better, but it’s good, and that means it’s not likely to be a drag for Kamala with the remaining undecideds.

 

[roostra]

This can't possibly be correct. There's far more at stake in our politics than the rights of trans people. Platforms have many different planks, For instance, the rights of gay people. And minorities. If we could ensure a Kamala victory by passing a "no trans surgeries anywhere" at the federal level, it would be clearly worth it because the consequences of a Trump victory would a) be terrible for trans people anyway and b) lead to the mass deportations, concentration camps, infinite corruption, destruction of alliances, etc.

In other words, I'm positing an entirely plausible scenario in which the interests of Hispanic people and trans people are in tension or even opposed. Examples like this are extremely common in our history -- gay rights in the 70s and 80s being one of them (i.e. if Dems fully embraced gay people, it would be the end of further progress on civil rights for minorities). And in such an environment, it is just not realistic to say, "Dems have to do the right thing" because there's not a right course of action.

I think you can see that, given Democrats have already come out in support of trans rights, if we about-faced and said "Nope, we don't support these folks' rights anymore" that would (a) probably not get back any support we have lost over the issue and (b) alienate a not insubstantial part of existing support within the party.

Again the "If we could ensure a Kamala victory by..." part is something that is not knowable.

In my opinion, there is not that large a step from this kind of reasoning to "Hey let's engage in some voter fraud to swing the election to Harris in a small number of key counties, because the outcome of Trump getting elected would be horrifying and we would only be disenfranchising a relatively small number of citizens" and that type of reasoning further leads in the direction of "Hey, we could shoot this guy and then we have to weigh all the terrible things he will do in office against one life". (I know this is taking it pretty far out towards the logical extreme.) But ends/means arguments are hard to limit once you fully embrace the core idea.

 

[superrific]

I think you're taking the wrong message from this. If it wasn't trans rights, it would be something else - immigrants or CRT or whatever. It's all just a pretext. Conservative voters just have this general feeling that American culture is different than it used to be, and in a worse way - too black/brown. too foreign, too queer, too urban, too oversexed, too whatever. The individual issues are just the scapegoat du jour. if you made the trans issue go "poof" tomorrow, we would still be in exactly in the same place, and the people screeching about trans rights would just be doing the same screeching about a different issue.

You don't know that. I don't know that. Well, let me put it differently: I think we do know that for the vast majority of MAGAs. Indeed, I've been saying for the last eight years that MAGA has primarily been about racism, first and foremost.

BUT the polls have also shown more black people, and black men in particular, are either supporting Trump or are Trump curious. Why? Sexuality politics is a big part of that. If Kamala were to get the same vote share among black voters as Obama, the election would be over.

That's just to use one example. You're making a confident empirical prediction and I don't think you have any grounds for that. I'm trying to eschew any confidence at all.

 

[bdubunc01]

As someone who was there and as close to him as you said, I have a question for you. Did he appear in person to be more orange than usual? He seemed to have a particularly bad makeup day. How his people follow him looking like that is beyond me.

Funny you ask because I was genuinely curious to gauge that in person as well. Was not disappointed. Quite orange and amplified more when he came over to the area I was sitting and I got a closer look.

 

[rodoheel]

You don't know that. I don't know that. Well, let me put it differently: I think we do know that for the vast majority of MAGAs. Indeed, I've been saying for the last eight years that MAGA has primarily been about racism, first and foremost.

BUT the polls have also shown more black people, and black men in particular, are either supporting Trump or are Trump curious. Why? Sexuality politics is a big part of that. If Kamala were to get the same vote share among black voters as Obama, the election would be over.

That's just to use one example. You're making a confident empirical prediction and I don't think you have any grounds for that. I'm trying to eschew any confidence at all.

Of course I don't *know* that which is why I said I *think* that. (You know what they say, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.) What I do know is that we see this sort of panic/hysteria thing from conservative media/politicians/voters CONSTANTLY. Migrant caravan. CRT. Groomers. Drag queen story hour. Boys in girls sports. Woke this, woke that. Blah blah blah. Tried old culture war grievance baiting. The same people screech and yell and cheer at Trump rallies about all of them. it's the same culture resentment playbook every time. The issues change, but the rhythm and the tone and the implication don't.

You say this: "BUT the polls have also shown more black people, and black men in particular, are either supporting Trump or are Trump curious. Why? Sexuality politics is a big part of that." What is the basis for saying that "sexuality politics" is a "big part" of why black men are swinging to Trump? Is there polling to that effect? Or is that you just presenting a hypothesis?

 

[superrific]

1. Anyone willing to vote for the human pile of excrement that is Trump has already decided to do so.

While that might be true, that doesn't necessarily mean they are telling that to pollsters. You're basically saying that the "undecided" vote is going to break almost entirely for Harris and I really just don't see that as plausible. It might break disproportionately for Kamala. But it might not.

My mom is an undecided right now. She voted GOP for most of her life, and voted for Trump in 16. She told me that she didn't vote for Trump in '20 but couldn't bring herself to vote for Biden either. Well, anyway, my mom -- like a lot of Americans, I think -- is extremely scared of uncertainty. She likes the familiar. Even if the familiar is bad, she prefers it to the unfamiliar unless the unfamiliar is clearly better. So she is probably looking at this race and thinking something along the lines of:

A. Trump is awful
B. But we managed to survive with Trump before
C. Trump is even worse than he was
D. But we've never had a female president. We've done pretty well with men all this time, and especially white men.
E. Trump's ideas are horrible
F. But Kamala might destroy the whole country. We don't know.

And I can't predict which of those impulses will win out on Election Day.

 

[lawtig02]

While that might be true, that doesn't necessarily mean they are telling that to pollsters. You're basically saying that the "undecided" vote is going to break almost entirely for Harris and I really just don't see that as plausible. It might break disproportionately for Kamala. But it might not.

My mom is an undecided right now. She voted GOP for most of her life, and voted for Trump in 16. She told me that she didn't vote for Trump in '20 but couldn't bring herself to vote for Biden either. Well, anyway, my mom -- like a lot of Americans, I think -- is extremely scared of uncertainty. She likes the familiar. Even if the familiar is bad, she prefers it to the unfamiliar unless the unfamiliar is clearly better. So she is probably looking at this race and thinking something along the lines of:

A. Trump is awful
B. But we managed to survive with Trump before
C. Trump is even worse than he was
D. But we've never had a female president. We've done pretty well with men all this time, and especially white men.
E. Trump's ideas are horrible
F. But Kamala might destroy the whole country. We don't know.

And I can't predict which of those impulses will win out on Election Day.

I hear you, but to be clear, I’m not saying undecideds will break almost entirely to Kamala. I’m saying they’re not likely to break heavily to Trump. If it’s 80-20 Kamala, she wins easily. If it’s 50-50, she wins, but we’ll be chugging Mylanta. If it’s 80-20 Trump, we could potentially win, but he’d be the favorite. I just don’t think that latter scenario is likely.

 

[superrific]

You say this: "BUT the polls have also shown more black people, and black men in particular, are either supporting Trump or are Trump curious. Why? Sexuality politics is a big part of that." What is the basis for saying that "sexuality politics" is a "big part" of why black men are swinging to Trump? Is there polling to that effect? Or is that you just presenting a hypothesis?

1. Yes, there is polling to that effect.
2. Why did Pete Buttigieg get no lift-off whatsoever in the 2020 primary? He polled well among white people. Very well. But his support in the black community was non-existent, which is why he was not a plausible candidate.
3. The antipathy among black men for queerness is really well documented.

Here's a survey from Pew about this. A quote: "Black Protestants (57%) are much less likely than Catholics (78%) and the religiously unaffiliated (75%) to favor acceptance of homosexuality."

7. Gender, sexuality and religion

Roughly seven-in-ten Black Christians say that opposing sexism is essential to their faith, as do a similar share of those who belong to other religions.

www.pewresearch.org

Now, maybe that opposition to acceptance of homosexuality isn't causing a drift toward Trump, but something is. It probably isn't his attack on Haitians, you know? It isn't all about sexuality (and gender), but it is implausible that plays no role.

Edit to add: I know that trans and gay are not synonyms. But to the average person who doesn't accept homosexuality, they are.

 

[superrific]

I hear you, but to be clear, I’m not saying undecideds will break almost entirely to Kamala. I’m saying they’re not likely to break heavily to Trump. If it’s 80-20 Kamala, she wins easily. If it’s 50-50, she wins, but we’ll be chugging Mylanta. If it’s 80-20 Trump, we could potentially win, but he’d be the favorite. I just don’t think that latter scenario is likely.

If it's 80-20 AND the polls are correct, then she wins easily. But if the polls are off by 2 points in Trump's favor, then winning 80% of current undecideds will put us in Mylanta land in the best case scenario.

 

[superrific]

Black men are swinging to Trump because of all the reasons we’ve discussed in the red pilled young men thread.

I don’t think Black men are any more or less transphobic than white men. It’s a societal problem tied into masculinity and gender norms. You don’t acquiesce to this kind of transphobia, you present an argument to them that addresses the actual concerns they have. In terms of this masculinity crisis, I think it is rooted in economic policy 8 times out of 10, especially with Black men.

Well, they are less accepting of homosexuality according to Pew. Again, that's not the same as trans, but I doubt there are many people who are fine with trans but anti-gay.

You absolutely do present an argument to them to address their concerns. That's how the battle for gay marriage was ultimately won. But that fight took a very long time. Liberals wanted to deal with trans rights as if they were picking up from Obergefell, and whatever the merits of that judgment, it was unquestionably a different playbook than we used in the past.

It might be rooted in economic policy to some degree, but that Pew study suggests the opposite. Church-going black protestants were barely more tolerant than white protestants in that survey. Agnostic or atheist black people were the single most gay-tolerant group surveyed. Now maybe there are also cultural or economic discrepancies between agnostic and protestant black people, but if you take the survey at face value, then I don't think it's right to say that it's mostly just about economics.

 

[rodoheel]

1. Yes, there is polling to that effect.
2. Why did Pete Buttigieg get no lift-off whatsoever in the 2020 primary? He polled well among white people. Very well. But his support in the black community was non-existent, which is why he was not a plausible candidate.
3. The antipathy among black men for queerness is really well documented.

Here's a survey from Pew about this. A quote: "Black Protestants (57%) are much less likely than Catholics (78%) and the religiously unaffiliated (75%) to favor acceptance of homosexuality."

7. Gender, sexuality and religion

Roughly seven-in-ten Black Christians say that opposing sexism is essential to their faith, as do a similar share of those who belong to other religions.

www.pewresearch.org

Now, maybe that opposition to acceptance of homosexuality isn't causing a drift toward Trump, but something is. It probably isn't his attack on Haitians, you know? It isn't all about sexuality (and gender), but it is implausible that plays no role.

Edit to add: I know that trans and gay are not synonyms. But to the average person who doesn't accept homosexuality, they are.

I understand that to many anti-queer voters, trans and gay may well be the same thing. And I understand that among the traditional core Dem constituencies, black Christians (along with Hispanic Christians) are the most negative towards queer issues. But that sort of proves my point. Even if the word "trans" had never entered the political lexicon, Dems would still be the party supporting queer rights, and the thing you say is a problem would still be a problem.

Males, everywhere, have been trending conservative and trending to Trump over the last few years. I think it's implausible that the "trans" debate specifically, as opposed to the plethora of culture war issues I've referenced, is responsible for this shift. It very well may be a part of it. But I think this idea that if Kamala loses, it's specifically because of Dems fighting on trans rights, is simplistic at best and flat-out wrong at worst.

 

[superrific]

Poll numbers are not set in marble. Public approval ratings move. That’s why you go out and make the argument based on your actual values, not try to act as a megaphone for whatever the Pew poll is saying.

My point is, Black men, white men, Latino men, whatever. They’re all persuadable on this issue and it is not anyone’s top issue.

Address the economic concerns of these voters, and I think they become much easier to persuade in terms of other social issues.

1. I reject the primacy that you're giving to economic concerns, but that's a different thread.

2. OK, maybe they are persuadable on this issue and maybe they aren't. I don't really know. I think it's safe to say that some are (i.e. more than zero are, and more than zero aren't). But the point is that political battles go more smoothly when the persuasion precedes the politics. I mean, we still don't have federal civil rights protections for gay people, even now (only court precedents that are highly endangered), and that's after all these years of persuasion. Eh, I'm not sure that point cuts in my favor, but it does cut against yours. Maybe we're both just wrong that meaningful persuasion is possible.

3. You don't know how important that issue is to people. From what I've read, it's an incredibly important issue to evangelicals. That's why they are suddenly jumping up and down about protecting "girls' sports" after spending the last fifty years opposing girls' sports. Maybe those people were already voting Trump anyway. I mean, there's just so much that's unknowable. That's what makes politics so hard.

4. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not arguing it was a mistake for the Dems to go all-in on trans rights. I'm arguing that maybe it was a mistake. As I said, years ago I feared it would be and my confidence hasn't really changed. It's speculative, but I think we are all speculating. Also, I'm not debating whether it's the right thing to do absent political considerations.

 

[Rock]

I assume this was posted elsewhere?

 

[SmilingJack]

So much of this seems like projection. I'm sure that's not the intention but it is never really clear why voters get persuaded to change their minds. At this time I'm thinking trying to figure out how to change someone's mind is more a view of the person arguing one issue is more important than another is more about them than the group they're talking about.

 

[rodoheel]

3. You don't know how important that issue is to people. From what I've read, it's an incredibly important issue to evangelicals. That's why they are suddenly jumping up and down about protecting "girls' sports" after spending the last fifty years opposing girls' sports. Maybe those people were already voting Trump anyway. I mean, there's just so much that's unknowable. That's what makes politics so hard.

Lots of things about politics are unknowable, but "will the evangelicals break for Trump no matter what" is not really one of them.

 

[Kingpin]

I assume this was posted elsewhere?

Is this being challenged? Can this shit stand?

 

[lightbluenc]

The State Board of Elections in the release said the majority of those stripped from the rolls were deemed ineligible to be registered because they had moved within the state and did not register their new address, or because they did not participate in the past two federal elections, prompting an inactive status.

Other reasons for removal included death, felony convictions, out-of-state moves and personal requests for removal, the board said.