Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?

[ZenMode]

Polling shows, as it relates to trans rights, Republicans are only against messing with kids and males in female sports.

 

[SnoopRob]

You’re assuming the only way to build a coalition is by getting one side to change its mind on the other’s most contentious issue. That’s not how coalition politics works. Coalitions are built on overlapping interests, not total agreement.

I’m not suggesting we “bring together” a trans activist and a conservative who opposes trans rights over a campfire and get them to sing kumbaya.

What I’m saying is quite clear: you build a coalition by anchoring the agenda in material concerns: wages, housing, healthcare, public services. You know, the things that cut across identity lines and speak to people’s lived realities. You don’t pretend differences don’t exist, but you also don’t lead with the hardest edge of your cultural platform in every conversation. That’s called strategic discipline.

Politics is not a goddamn seminar. It’s a battlefield for power, and power comes from building majorities. That means recognizing the emotional terrain we’re operating in. A terrain where people vote on identity and story more than pure, rational logic. The right understands this. They flood the zone with emotionally resonant lies. We respond with lectures and litmus tests.

I’m not sure what more you want from me. Are you asking me to write out the entire ad campaign, as if anything short of a line-by-line script isn’t a serious argument? You understand perfectly well the kind of stories I’m talking about because I’ve typed out the same words dozens of times over the last week: ones grounded in shared material struggle, told with emotional clarity and narrative power. Stories that speak to what it feels like to live in this country right now, to be crushed by rent, medical bills, or job insecurity.

You say we can’t appeal to working-class conservatives “in any real numbers” without selling out LGBTQ+ people. But how do you know? What serious attempt has been made to run on a truly universal, emotionally grounded, materially focused populist message that doesn’t fall into the culture war traps but also doesn’t abandon vulnerable people? Democrats haven’t tried that. Instead, they lurch between reactive moralism and donor-approved technocracy, and then wonder why trust has evaporated.

So let me now turn the question back to you: What is your strategy? Not what you’re against, not who you’re defending, but what is the actual political strategy for winning power, building a durable majority, and making material improvements in people’s lives?

I'm stating that if Group A won't vote for Candidate Q unless they support Position X and Group B won't vote for Candidate Q unless they oppose Position X, then there is no way to get those two groups to both vote for Candidate Q. That's not asking folks to come together around a campfire and sing kumbaya, that's just basic logic.

The problem with your idea of "anchoring the agenda in material concerns" is that working class conservatives have more than proven they will vote against their material interests unless they are (A) given a privileged place in society to receive the resulting government material assistance and (B) are allowed to be able to discriminate broadly against minorities.

Dems have tried to put forth many, many ideas and programs that would help the working class. And working class conservatives have steadily rejected them. I know that you believe that's because it just hasn't been approached in the "right way", using the magical formula of "emotional connection" plus "persuasive storytelling". But when Progressive Dems (like Bernie) have tried such an approach, working class conservatives don't flock to those candidates, they accuse them of being communists and mock them. And when we dig into why working class conservatives vote Republican, we see that the operational issues aren't actually economic ones, they are almost all social issues where working class conservatives are motivated by bigotry and the desire to marginalize minority communities. In light of such evidence, why would we try to go even further in a direction that both lived experience and empirical data shows us isn't addressing the motivating factors for working class conservatives?

The best summation I would give of the strategy I would approach future elections with would be to identify groups that (A) lean-Dem but are currently not engaged to go to the polls on a consistent basis and that (B) currently do go to the polls consistently who are reachable by Dems but don't consistently vote Dem. I would put in the work via focus groups/surveys/data collection to determine the issues that would get these groups to (A) vote consistently and (B) vote Dem and would encourage the party and its candidates to build campaigns around these issues. The goal should be to grow the Dem turnout by engaging with voters who are open to what Dems have to offer and by engaging those voters on issues that motivate them to go to the polls. I will be 100% honest that I do not know what those issues are, but I would believe them to be the key to raising Dem engagement/turnout toward election victories.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Liberals are determined to do stupid shit.

Protesting in Times Square yesterday by saving around Iranian flags. It’s one thing to be anti-war and not want to get involved in the conflict. Waving the flags of Iran and having pro-Iranian flags is beyond ridiculous. And for most Americans, they immediately see that and know which side of the political spectrum they fall.

 

[Centerpiece]

Nobody wants anybody “messing with kids” and if Republicans don’t want anybody “messing with kids” then they shouldn’t have elected the felon to be their president. That fucker has probably messed with teenage girls much more than any transgender would even think about such things. Pubs don’t want a trans in the girls bathroom period. And they create the strawman argument that a trans in the ladies room equates to “messing with kids”. It’s pure BS but it resonates with grandma.

As far as Bruce Jenner entering a foot race in the women’s division…. That’s another issue altogether. I’m not at all sure I’m in agreement with that myself. However, that instance doesn’t and isn’t happening much at all. Very few instances have been recorded as far as we know. The problem with Dems is they keep wanting to die on that hill to allow Bruce to enter that race. The Dems go all in, 100% on that issue and they trumpet it for all the world to see. I think that’s a mistake. If Bruce in a ladies foot race makes up about 0.00001% of the population, then the Dems ought to give the issue about 0.00001% of the oxygen in their messaging… not 100%.

Where the Pubs win in this issue - according to the polls - is they use this total non-issue as 110% of their messaging and it works like a charm on grandma and grandpa… you know, the base of the party… they eat it up.

The Dems fall into the trap of exacerbating the issue by defending Bruce’s right to race in the division of his (now her) choice. I think Gavin Newsom may be on to something… Dems need to quit dying on that bill.

 

[Centerpiece]

Liberals are determined to do stupid shit.

Protesting in Times Square yesterday by saving around Iranian flags. It’s one thing to be anti-war and not want to get involved in the conflict. Waving the flags of Iran and having pro-Iranian flags is beyond ridiculous. And for most Americans, they immediately see that and know which side of the political spectrum they fall.

Exactly. Another stupid hill on which Dems will happily die on.

At the end of the day, we stupid Americans get what we deserve, we get what we voted for. And we voted for Trump twice. We asked for it. We got it.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Exactly. Another stupid hill on which Dems will happily die on.

At the end of the day, we stupid Americans get what we deserve, we get what we voted for. And we voted for Trump twice. We asked for it. We got it.

I have never voted for Trump. Every day I see him, I think how did he win?

Then I turn on the TV and the Democrats are protesting and yelling and supporting the stupidest causes and I think ok, I get it. It’s not that it makes sense but the Democrats have struggled on the most simple things. It wouldn’t be so frustrating if the Democrats didn’t have the right position on policy things basically every time but they are so stupid politically.

 

[SnoopRob]

Nobody wants anybody “messing with kids” and if Republicans don’t want anybody “messing with kids” then they shouldn’t have elected the felon to be their president. That fucker has probably messed with teenage girls much more than any transgender would even think about such things. Pubs don’t want a trans in the girls bathroom period. And they create the strawman argument that a trans in the ladies room equates to “messing with kids”. It’s pure BS but it resonates with grandma.

As far as Bruce Jenner entering a foot race in the women’s division…. That’s another issue altogether. I’m not at all sure I’m in agreement with that myself. However, that instance doesn’t and isn’t happening much at all. Very few instances have been recorded as far as we know. The problem with Dems is they keep wanting to die on that hill to allow Bruce to enter that race. The Dems go all in, 100% on that issue and they trumpet it for all the world to see. I think that’s a mistake. If Bruce in a ladies foot race makes up about 0.00001% of the population, then the Dems ought to give the issue about 0.00001% of the oxygen in their messaging… not 100%.

Where the Pubs win in this issue - according to the polls - is they use this total non-issue as 110% of their messaging and it works like a charm on grandma and grandpa… you know, the base of the party… they eat it up.

The Dems fall into the trap of exacerbating the issue by defending Bruce’s right to race in the division of his (now her) choice. I think Gavin Newsom may be on to something… Dems need to quit dying on that bill.

Again, given the Pubs will simply move to the next wedge issue if Dems compromise on one specific issue, how do Dems engage on social issues without essentially giving up on a wide swath of social issues?

As you note, before transgender athletes in sports, it was transgender folks in bathrooms. If Dems concede on sports, Pubs will simply focus back onto bathrooms with similar electoral results. So how do Dems handle transgender issues without giving in across the board?

 

[Centerpiece]

I have never voted for Trump. Every day I see him, I think how did he win?

Then I turn on the TV and the Democrats are protesting and yelling and supporting the stupidest causes and I think ok, I get it. It’s not that it makes sense but the Democrats have struggled on the most simple things. It wouldn’t be so frustrating if the Democrats didn’t have the right position on policy things basically every time but they are so stupid politically.

Dems keep following the loony left and they keep trying to move the party even further left. And it doesn’t work. The Centrists and this unaffiliated voter gets turned off.

I never even considered voting for trump, and never would, but it’s becoming painfully obvious how the pubs got some Center-left folks to either vote for him, or perhaps more obviously, to not vote at all. And that’s what handed the election to Taco Donny.

Having said that, the Pubs have followed their right-wing-wackos all the way to the right… way overboard to the right… and it seems to work for them. They won. They’re winning. And loony liberals in Times Square waving Iranian flags at this point in time is not a good look…

Those loony libs may think they’re supporting the Iranian people - the ordinary Iranian who doesn’t like the current regime, who doesn’t support the Ayatollah, who doesn’t support those who back Hamas, etc. - but waving the Iranian flag is the exact WRONG way to show that support. Waving that flag now is sending the exact OPPOSITE message.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Dems keep following the loony left and they keep trying to move the party even further left. And it doesn’t work. The Centrists and this unaffiliated voter gets turned off.

I never even considered voting for trump, and never would, but it’s becoming painfully obvious how the pubs got some Center-left folks to either vote for him, or perhaps more obviously, to not vote at all. And that’s what handed the election to Taco Donny.

Having said that, the Pubs have followed their right-wing-wackos all the way to the right… way overboard to the right… and it seems to work for them. They won. They’re winning. And loony liberals in Times Square waving Iranian flags at this point in time is not a good look…

Those loony libs may think they’re supporting the Iranian people - the ordinary Iranian who doesn’t like the current regime, who doesn’t support the Ayatollah, who doesn’t support those who back Hamas, etc. - but waving the Iranian flag is the exact WRONG way to show that support. Waving that flag now is sending the exact OPPOSITE message.

The sad thing is the vast majority of Americans support Democratic policy positions. The Hispanic move to the Republicans is going to be what dooms the party until they adjust. I do think they will eventually but seeing Hispanics have such a high approval rating for Trump (by far the highest of any group) makes me sick. I understand the Hispanics are pro-traditional family (whatever that means), more religious, and prefer tighter immigration but there’s simply nothing in the Republican platform that is really for them.

 

[Centerpiece]

The sad thing is the vast majority of Americans support Democratic policy positions. The Hispanic move to the Republicans is going to be what dooms the party until they adjust. I do think they will eventually but seeing Hispanics have such a high approval rating for Trump (by far the highest of any group) makes me sick. I understand the Hispanics are pro-traditional family (whatever that means), more religious, and prefer tighter immigration but there’s simply nothing in the Republican platform that is really for them.

Hispanics are anti abortion, anti gay, pro Christian, anti trans, prone to misogyny… and those who are here legally and from certain countries tend to be racists as all get out. Doesn’t that sound like the Republican platform?

 

[Paine]

I'm stating that if Group A won't vote for Candidate Q unless they support Position X and Group B won't vote for Candidate Q unless they oppose Position X, then there is no way to get those two groups to both vote for Candidate Q. That's not asking folks to come together around a campfire and sing kumbaya, that's just basic logic.

The problem with your idea of "anchoring the agenda in material concerns" is that working class conservatives have more than proven they will vote against their material interests unless they are (A) given a privileged place in society to receive the resulting government material assistance and (B) are allowed to be able to discriminate broadly against minorities.

Dems have tried to put forth many, many ideas and programs that would help the working class. And working class conservatives have steadily rejected them. I know that you believe that's because it just hasn't been approached in the "right way", using the magical formula of "emotional connection" plus "persuasive storytelling". But when Progressive Dems (like Bernie) have tried such an approach, working class conservatives don't flock to those candidates, they accuse them of being communists and mock them. And when we dig into why working class conservatives vote Republican, we see that the operational issues aren't actually economic ones, they are almost all social issues where working class conservatives are motivated by bigotry and the desire to marginalize minority communities. In light of such evidence, why would we try to go even further in a direction that both lived experience and empirical data shows us isn't addressing the motivating factors for working class conservatives?

The best summation I would give of the strategy I would approach future elections with would be to identify groups that (A) lean-Dem but are currently not engaged to go to the polls on a consistent basis and that (B) currently do go to the polls consistently who are reachable by Dems but don't consistently vote Dem. I would put in the work via focus groups/surveys/data collection to determine the issues that would get these groups to (A) vote consistently and (B) vote Dem and would encourage the party and its candidates to build campaigns around these issues. The goal should be to grow the Dem turnout by engaging with voters who are open to what Dems have to offer and by engaging those voters on issues that motivate them to go to the polls. I will be 100% honest that I do not know what those issues are, but I would believe them to be the key to raising Dem engagement/turnout toward election victories.

Your reply confirms the deeper divide in how we each understand politics. You’re describing a turnout operation. I’m describing a political strategy.

What you’ve outlined isn’t a plan to build power, it’s a plan to run focus groups. You say you’d identify voters who “lean Dem” but aren’t showing up, then discover which issues might activate them. You don’t even claim to know what those issues are, you just assume they’re out there, waiting to be found with the right consultant and the right polling instrument.

Let’s step back and ask: where does that actually get us? Let’s say you identify just enough voters to squeak out a narrow win in 2028. Then what? A 51–49 Senate? A 5-seat House majority? Do you think that gives you the power to codify LGBTQ+ protections? Pass climate legislation? Expand labor rights or social housing? Of course not. It leaves you right where we’ve been: paralyzed, triangulating, praying the courts don’t strike everything down while the Right builds toward permanent counter-majoritarian rule.

There is no path to meaningful structural change through the strategy you’re describing. It’s a short-term survival plan, not a long-term governing vision. You can’t pass transformative legislation with a brittle coalition that maxes out at 50.1 percent and constantly needs to appease suburban moderates and panicked consultants.

If you actually care about the rights and material conditions of marginalized people, and I believe you do, then you need a theory of how to build enough power to make real gains. That means expanding the electorate. That means reaching people who don’t already trust you. That means persuasion, not just mobilization. You’re not going to win a durable governing majority by talking to the same shrinking pool over and over again.

You assume voters are fixed, especially white working-class conservatives, and that their bigotry is so entrenched that outreach is pointless. But coalitions are built, not discovered. They’re shaped by messaging, story, emotional connection, and yes, discipline. Not everyone is reachable, but treating a huge chunk of the electorate as irredeemable ensures they never will be.

You say, “If Group A and Group B disagree on Issue X, then they can’t support the same candidate.” That’s a logic puzzle, not a political strategy. In real life, people vote for candidates they trust to fight for them, even if they don’t agree on everything. That’s how majorities are formed. You lead with what unites.

You may call my approach naive because I argue that shared material concerns can cut through identity divides. But your plan rests on the idea that there’s this pool of latent Democratic voters who are just waiting for the party to say the magic words. If that’s true, why didn’t they show up in 2024, when the stakes were existential and the messaging was already being micro-targeted? Why hasn’t this mythical “lean Dem” vote materialized despite massive spending and data-driven outreach?

Here’s the difference: I think politics is about persuasion and meaning-making. You think it’s about segmentation and optimization. That’s why your instinct is to narrowcast: to shrink the coalition into the most manageable base possible, then try to squeeze out just enough votes to win.

Your comment about working-class conservatives voting against their material interests unless they get special treatment or permission to discriminate is an emotionally satisfying way to write off millions of people and avoid the hard work of persuasion. You talk as if every white working-class voter is Bull Connor, completely incapable of moral growth or political recalibration. But people are contradictory. They can hold regressive views and still respond to solidarity. They can spout culture war talking points and still want their kid to see a doctor without going bankrupt. And yes, some are unreachable. But many are not.

You point out that they vote against their material interests but you don’t really ask why. You don’t show any curiosity about what emotional and social dynamics fill the void where trust in government used to be. You just slap the label “bigot” on them and move on.

You say Bernie already tried my strategy, but he didn’t run the kind of full-spectrum left populist campaign I’m describing. He was boxed in by the primary electorate and buried under a hostile liberal media ecosystem. Even so, he still ran laps around other Democrats with working-class voters of all races in 2020. Imagine what could’ve been done outside those constraints.

I’ll ask again: what, specifically, do you propose Democrats say to these “lean Dem” voters that will succeed where everything else has failed? What message? What emotional hook? Because if all you’ve got is “find the right issue through polling and hope for better turnout,” that’s not a political strategy.

 

[Paine]

Again, given the Pubs will simply move to the next wedge issue if Dems compromise on one specific issue, how do Dems engage on social issues without essentially giving up on a wide swath of social issues?

As you note, before transgender athletes in sports, it was transgender folks in bathrooms. If Dems concede on sports, Pubs will simply focus back onto bathrooms with similar electoral results. So how do Dems handle transgender issues without giving in across the board?

Do you not remember that Republicans already tried the bathroom panic, and it backfired? Pat McCrory lost the 2016 North Carolina governor’s race because of HB2. The backlash wasn’t because Democrats caved or stayed quiet; it was because the issue was reframed: as government overreach, economic sabotage, and a needless culture war that made NC a national punchline.

The lesson isn’t “give ground on trans issues.” It’s that you don’t win by playing defense. You win by shifting the emotional terrain: mocking their obsession, tying it to real-world harm, and showing voters who the real weirdos are.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Hispanics are anti abortion, anti gay, pro Christian, anti trans, prone to misogyny… and those who are here legally and from certain countries tend to be racists as all get out. Doesn’t that sound like the Republican platform?

I don’t believe the majority are racist. The overwhelming majority of every racial group is not racist.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

You’re saying people want a story: something emotional, moral, and bigger than themselves. I agree. That’s what Trump offers, even if it’s a destructive fantasy. He gives people the feeling that he sees them, that he’s in the fight, that he’s sticking it to the people they think have looked down on them. It’s theater, but it feels like truth. And in politics, feelings build loyalty more than facts.

That’s why Democrats need more than policy tweaks. They need someone who can tell a different kind of story rooted in dignity, work, and shared struggle. Not spectacle, but purpose.

Your story illustrates the point perfectly. People want to laugh, feel seen, feel understood. That emotional connection matters more than whether every fact checks out. It’s not about lying, it’s about recognition.

And yes, Trump offers that. But so could we. If we told stories grounded in real life—in labor, sacrifice, and community—we could meet that emotional need without surrendering to fantasy. It seems like you already know how to do that. The political left needs to catch up.

Kamala did a lot of what you're calling for.

 

[Paine]

I don’t believe the majority are racist. The overwhelming majority of every racial group is not racist.

It’s the same tired pattern: voters move right, and instead of asking what the Democratic Party failed to offer them, emotionally, materially, narratively, liberals insist those voters were simply too backward to appreciate the moral clarity on offer. That’s a losing posture. You can’t build a majority by resenting the electorate.

If most Americans broadly support Democratic policy positions (as you rightly note), then the question is: why aren’t those policies translating into votes? That’s the terrain we should be focused on: what kinds of messaging, storytelling, and coalition-building are actually capable of turning latent support into durable political power.

Treating whole communities as culturally defective or morally suspect because they don’t vote blue every cycle is exactly how you lose them for good.

 

[ZenMode]

How is it that the gay rights movement went so well for Dems, while the trans rights movement backfired so badly?

 

[Paine]

Kamala did a lot of what you're calling for.

If you think Kamala Harris told a story rooted in dignity, work, and shared struggle, then we weren’t watching the same movie.The emotional through-line of her campaign wasn’t “I see you, I’m fighting for you.” It was “Trust me, I’m qualified.” And that doesn’t move people. Especially not voters who already feel invisible, discarded, or culturally alienated.

Trump may be a fraud, but he performs connection. He gives people the feeling that he’s in the fight with them, even if what he’s fighting for is grotesque. Kamala performed competence. That might win over donors or cable news panels, but it doesn’t inspire anyone living paycheck to paycheck.

And given how many people already saw her as unqualified or politically hollow, doubling down on résumé and credentials just reinforced their doubts. It felt disconnected, elite, and ultimately condescending, like the campaign was being run for people who already believed in her, not those who needed a reason to.

Politics isn’t a job interview. It’s a struggle for meaning and power. If we want to win, we need leaders who understand that and campaigns that speak to people’s pain, not just their policy priorities.

 

[wmheel1287]

The sad thing is the vast majority of Americans support Democratic policy positions. The Hispanic move to the Republicans is going to be what dooms the party until they adjust. I do think they will eventually but seeing Hispanics have such a high approval rating for Trump (by far the highest of any group) makes me sick. I understand the Hispanics are pro-traditional family (whatever that means), more religious, and prefer tighter immigration but there’s simply nothing in the Republican platform that is really for them.

Racism is ultra powerful in the Hispanic community....particularly toward other Hispanic people.

 

[wmheel1287]

It’s the same tired pattern: voters move right, and instead of asking what the Democratic Party failed to offer them, emotionally, materially, narratively, liberals insist those voters were simply too backward to appreciate the moral clarity on offer. That’s a losing posture. You can’t build a majority by resenting the electorate.

If most Americans broadly support Democratic policy positions (as you rightly note), then the question is: why aren’t those policies translating into votes? That’s the terrain we should be focused on: what kinds of messaging, storytelling, and coalition-building are actually capable of turning latent support into durable political power.

Treating whole communities as culturally defective or morally suspect because they don’t vote blue every cycle is exactly how you lose them for good.

But what if I do resent the electorate? Like vicerally resent them? That's the bridge we are at for the audience you're trying to convince here.

 

[Paine]

How is it that the gay rights movement went so well for Dems, while the trans rights movement backfired so badly?

Because by the time the major legal and political battles over gay rights peaked, most Americans already knew someone who was gay, or at least felt like they did. That made empathy intuitive. The core message of “love is love” resonated because people could map it onto a brother, a friend, a coworker, or a favorite celebrity. The political demand felt personal, familiar, and rooted in basic decency.

That isn’t true yet with trans rights. Trans people are a much smaller group, and many Americans still don’t personally know someone who is openly trans. That makes empathy harder to activate and fear easier to stoke. The right has taken full advantage of that by deliberately framing trans issues around kids, sports, and bathrooms to trigger confusion, anxiety, and moral panic. It’s a playbook: exploit unfamiliarity, invent a threat, then cast yourself as the protector of common sense and decency.

The result is that Democrats find themselves in a reactive posture: defending people who deserve protection, yes, but doing so in a rhetorical terrain shaped entirely by the right. There hasn’t been the same kind of proactive, emotionally resonant storytelling around trans dignity as there was around gay rights. And that’s not just a moral failure, it’s a strategic one.

This doesn’t mean Democrats should abandon trans people. It means they need to be smarter in how they fight for them. Lead with solidarity, not slogans. Connect trans rights to broader themes of bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and dignity; values that have wide resonance. And above all, stop taking the bait every time Republicans try to turn the most marginal example into the center of national discourse.

Rights get won through empathy and coalition-building. The gay rights movement got that right. The trans rights movement deserves the same kind of disciplined, emotionally grounded support.