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

[ZenMode]

The Dems won the policy battle but it did not help the Dems at the ballot box. At no point in our country's history has "gay rights" been anything but a niche campaign issue, except in those elections when it was a main issue that hurt Dems. The Dems did the right thing even though it wasn't popular.

Seeing as how many GOP populists have scored political points by going after gay people -- not just trans people! Gay people! -- I don't think we're done getting punished at the ballot box for doing the right thing.

How is the GOP scoring political points on the gay rights issue?

 

[superrific]

You’ve now called me a “fucking twat” and implied others are thinking the same while still posturing as the reasonable, thoughtful adult in the room. That alone says more about where you’re at than where I’m at.

1. No, I specifically did not call you that. I mentioned that the thought comes to my mind because your posts come across so presumptuously. I know others are thinking similar thoughts because they have said so. It isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at the way you are talking to us.

If someone says, "I feel invalidated" and the response is, "no, I haven't invalidated you and if you think so it's because there's something wrong with you" -- that's really bad communication. You're getting married soon, right? Or maybe you already have? Either way, the marriage could be short-lived if you talk to your wife this way.

If someone says to you -- someone who is normally very thoughtful -- that they feel invalidated to the point where they want to tell you to fuck off, the proper response is to ease off the gas. Otherwise, you will never reach them. I mean, you're trying to give us lessons on persuasion and doing so in the least persuasive manner possible.

2. Meanwhile, it just gets so tiring to hear the same thing over and over again: "Democrats haven’t tried what I’m arguing for: a universalist, emotionally resonant, class-rooted message delivered with moral clarity rather than donor-tested caution"

I just don't even know what you're talking about. What do you think JFK and LBJ were doing? What was the War on Poverty all about? And back when supporting civil rights meant voting for the telegenic guy and watching protests on TV, sure a lot of blue collar white people supported it. Until they had to sacrifice something, at which point their attitudes changed.

So as a first pass, don't say Dems have never tried this because it insults the intelligence of anyone who was alive then or knows about it. It's also less persuasive to suggest something completely novel than to say, let's go back to the Great Society. But of course, doing so raises the question that you seek to avoid: why did this strategy fail? Why, after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, after the anti-poverty efforts from Johnson, did the Dems get their clocks cleaned in 4 of the next 5 presidential elections?

I say that it's because the white people didn't actually want civil rights for minorities. They were at best indifferent about it. Northerners saw little reason to flee the Dem party because southerners were losing the right to have colored water fountains . . . and then came busing. And affirmative action. And a whole bunch of other stuff that probably didn't affect people all that much but seemed scary. Thus did the generation of the Great Society become the generation of Reagan. Vietnam played a role there but not that big a one, as it was over during the 1970s when the backlash really came.

3. One critique of Dems that comes from minority communities is that Dems are mostly talk and little action on race. Crime bill and all that. This is why Biden made so much effort to reach out to that community with Kamala and KBJ and other promises. It was an effort to reach out after the black community didn't really show for HRC. Problem: minority communities perceive themselves to have special problems that are not faced by white people. I think they are right in that, but regardless delivering for that community means doing things that are race-targeted or at least race-coded. And doing so makes the white legacy Dem voters angry and thus do we get panics about DEI and CRT and immigrants eating pets etc.

This is a real issue that cannot be papered over so easily. There are a lot of white people who do not want to be in a coalition with black people, and they will gladly eat less for dinner to avoid that fate. Remember that north of Richmond guy and Billy Bragg's response? Yeah, they don't like unions either, because unions are inclusive. They don't want solidarity.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

They're trying to put the control back with the states. I don't find that to be unacceptable.

So they can ban gay marriage just like they did with abortion, and pass the most extreme abortion bans imaginable? If Obergefell is overturned, then nearly every red state will overturn gay marriage post haste. I'm sure that all of those people whose marriages will be annulled will be thrilled. And make no mistake, that's exactly what will happen. Red states won't just overturn future gay marriages, they'll anul (or at least try to) those that already exist. It's what they do.

 

[superrific]

They're trying to put the control back with the states. I don't find that to be unacceptable.

While we're at it, why don't we return issues like civil rights and voting rights back to the states? Fuck, get rid of the 13th and 15th Amendments. Return slavery policy to the states.

THE REASON THESE ISSUES WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE STATES IS THAT THE STATES PROVED TO BE COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNABLE TO HONOR THE TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Paine]

1. No, I specifically did not call you that. I mentioned that the thought comes to my mind because your posts come across so presumptuously. I know others are thinking similar thoughts because they have said so. It isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at the way you are talking to us.

If someone says, "I feel invalidated" and the response is, "no, I haven't invalidated you and if you think so it's because there's something wrong with you" -- that's really bad communication. You're getting married soon, right? Or maybe you already have? Either way, the marriage could be short-lived if you talk to your wife this way.

If someone says to you -- someone who is normally very thoughtful -- that they feel invalidated to the point where they want to tell you to fuck off, the proper response is to ease off the gas. Otherwise, you will never reach them. I mean, you're trying to give us lessons on persuasion and doing so in the least persuasive manner possible.

2. Meanwhile, it just gets so tiring to hear the same thing over and over again: "Democrats haven’t tried what I’m arguing for: a universalist, emotionally resonant, class-rooted message delivered with moral clarity rather than donor-tested caution"

I just don't even know what you're talking about. What do you think JFK and LBJ were doing? What was the War on Poverty all about? And back when supporting civil rights meant voting for the telegenic guy and watching protests on TV, sure a lot of blue collar white people supported it. Until they had to sacrifice something, at which point their attitudes changed.

So as a first pass, don't say Dems have never tried this because it insults the intelligence of anyone who was alive then or knows about it. It's also less persuasive to suggest something completely novel than to say, let's go back to the Great Society. But of course, doing so raises the question that you seek to avoid: why did this strategy fail? Why, after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, after the anti-poverty efforts from Johnson, did the Dems get their clocks cleaned in 4 of the next 5 presidential elections?

I say that it's because the white people didn't actually want civil rights for minorities. They were at best indifferent about it. Northerners saw little reason to flee the Dem party because southerners were losing the right to have colored water fountains . . . and then came busing. And affirmative action. And a whole bunch of other stuff that probably didn't affect people all that much but seemed scary. Thus did the generation of the Great Society become the generation of Reagan. Vietnam played a role there but not that big a one, as it was over during the 1970s when the backlash really came.

3. One critique of Dems that comes from minority communities is that Dems are mostly talk and little action on race. Crime bill and all that. This is why Biden made so much effort to reach out to that community with Kamala and KBJ and other promises. It was an effort to reach out after the black community didn't really show for HRC. Problem: minority communities perceive themselves to have special problems that are not faced by white people. I think they are right in that, but regardless delivering for that community means doing things that are race-targeted or at least race-coded. And doing so makes the white legacy Dem voters angry and thus do we get panics about DEI and CRT and immigrants eating pets etc.

This is a real issue that cannot be papered over so easily. There are a lot of white people who do not want to be in a coalition with black people, and they will gladly eat less for dinner to avoid that fate. Remember that north of Richmond guy and Billy Bragg's response? Yeah, they don't like unions either, because unions are inclusive. They don't want solidarity.

If someone here called you a “condescending hack with nothing new to say” and then added, “hey, others are thinking it too,” would you feel like that was a good-faith move?

You say I’ve invalidated your experience. I haven’t. I’ve challenged your conclusions. That’s not the same thing. If that feels threatening, I’d suggest that says more about the level of insulation in many liberal spaces than about my tone.

You tell me I’m repeating myself, but what I’m saying resonates with many readers, both in public replies and quiet DMs. The thread is still going because the questions I’m raising clearly tap into something unresolved. You might be tired of the conversation, but again, your fatigue is not an argument.

As for your historical points: I know about the Great Society. And yes, it was a high point for universalist messaging. But Democrats didn’t lose because they passed Medicare. They lost because they failed to sustain the emotional and institutional ground needed to hold that coalition together, especially when the right countered with culture war, racial division, and a narrative of resentment. That’s exactly the terrain I’m saying Democrats still haven’t learned to navigate.

You asked me to show curiosity about your experience. Fair enough. But maybe extend a little in return. I don’t need an introduction to the Great Society: I’m asking why Democrats haven’t built anything like it since. And why, when that legacy is invoked, it’s often to shut down critique rather than to rekindle its spirit.

And that’s the point: I’m not claiming what I’m proposing has never been imagined. I’m saying the party hasn’t consistently fought for it; not with coherence, not with emotional resonance, not with strategic clarity. Not in a generation.

I know the problem isn’t simple. I’ve said repeatedly that bias, cultural grievance, and fear of inclusion are real barriers. But naming those barriers is not the same as accepting them as immovable. You conclude that solidarity failed because people didn’t want it. I conclude that the attempt was real but incomplete, and that the only alternative to trying again is accepting permanent minority rule.

If you’ve truly given up on reaching disaffected voters, just say so. But don’t attack others for refusing to do the same.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

You say you’ve spent decades trying to understand why people vote against their material interests and finally concluded…it’s bigotry. Fine. But if that’s the endpoint, then what’s the strategy? Write them off?

I think something that chafes me about your vision, while agreeing with a good chunk of what you say, is that you put the "burden" on people who have been and will continue to be written off to give a big group hug to a bunch of bigots who are among those who have written them off. It sounds like a one way street the way you talk about it, that the people who've been dealing with shit sandwiches their whole life now have to cater to the delicate and irrational needs of racists and homophobes and religious nutcases and tiny dickers and people who don't even believe in democracy.

I'm sure you get this but I say this because a) I think you're earnest and b) I assume you are actually trying to do coalition building in the real world, and you need to hear how you come across. (And I certainly hope you are doing real world coalition work - in the time you have spent talking about this topic here, you could have completed a cross-county walking tour to talk to every disaffected voter you hope to reach )

 

[4thgenheel]

They're trying to put the control back with the states. I don't find that to be unacceptable.

no - handing issues involving basic human and civil rights back to states that do not give a fuck about basic human and civil rights is not acceptable.

 

[ZenMode]

[/QUOTE]

no - handing issues involving basic human and civil rights back to states that do not give a fuck about basic human and civil rights is not acceptable.

That all depends on what you view as a human right. Opinions on that vary on many topics.

 

[UNCatTech]

Direct deposits. Not tax cuts, child credits, loan forgiveness, none of that shit. Cold hard cash. That checks every box you listed. Guaranteed votes...

I really believe universal basic income could be a winner if framed right and tied to reductions in others services.

Of course you would need to overcome the....

Socialist label from the right.

 

[4thgenheel]

While we're at it, why don't we return issues like civil rights and voting rights back to the states? Fuck, get rid of the 13th and 15th Amendments. Return slavery policy to the states.

THE REASON THESE ISSUES WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE STATES IS THAT THE STATES PROVED TO BE COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNABLE TO HONOR THE TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[UNCatTech]

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

Not true.

The party is trying to build legislation to basically make being LBGTQ illegal. If the leadership has its way LBGTQ people would have to hide.

 

[4thgenheel]

That all depends on what you view as a human right. Opinions on that vary on many topics.

jesus fucking christ.

not being subjected to really blatant and damaging discrimination based on your sexuality is pretty fucking textbook.

 

[ZenMode]

While we're at it, why don't we return issues like civil rights and voting rights back to the states? Fuck, get rid of the 13th and 15th Amendments. Return slavery policy to the states.

THE REASON THESE ISSUES WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE STATES IS THAT THE STATES PROVED TO BE COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNABLE TO HONOR THE TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

What is/isn't a civil right is more obvious in some cases than others.

 

[Paine]

I think something that chafes me about your vision, while agreeing with a good chunk of what you say, is that you put the "burden" on people who have been and will continue to be written off to give a big group hug to a bunch of bigots who are among those who have written them off. It sounds like a one way street the way you talk about it, that the people who've been dealing with shit sandwiches their whole life now have to cater to the delicate and irrational needs of racists and homophobes and religious nutcases and tiny dickers and people who don't even believe in democracy.

I'm sure you get this but I say this because a) I think you're earnest and b) I assume you are actually trying to do coalition building in the real world, and you need to hear how you come across. (And I certainly hope you are doing real world coalition work - in the time you have spent talking about this topic here, you could have completed a cross-county walking tour to talk to every disaffected voter you hope to reach )

The way I see it, the burden shouldn’t fall on marginalized communities to cater to anyone, least of all people who’ve denied their dignity. What I’m arguing is that the political project itself has to be structured around shared material interests, not around appeasement or moral compromise.

But in practice, building a durable majority means someone has to do the work of connecting across lines of difference, including painful ones. Not because it’s fair, but because that’s what coalition work is. The right does this ruthlessly: they offer alienated people a story, a place to belong, and someone to blame. Even people who didn’t traditionally think of themselves as conservative or right-wing.

I’m not asking Black, queer, or working-class people to hug it out with bigots. I’m saying the left has to tell a story that offers hope to the disillusioned without sacrificing the dignity of the already excluded. That’s a hard balance, but it’s possible, and we’ve seen glimpses of it before.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not just posting on the message board. I’m building something in the real world. But part of that work is testing language, refining arguments, and figuring out what resonates, which is why conversations like this matter. So thanks for your thoughtful engagement, truly.

 

[superrific]

If someone here called you a “condescending hack with nothing new to say” and then added, “hey, others are thinking it too,” would you feel like that was a good-faith move?

You say I’ve invalidated your experience. I haven’t. I’ve challenged your conclusions. That’s not the same thing. If that feels threatening, I’d suggest that says more about the level of insulation in many liberal spaces than about my tone.

You tell me I’m repeating myself, but what I’m saying resonates with many readers, both in public replies and quiet DMs. The thread is still going because the questions I’m raising clearly tap into something unresolved. You might be tired of the conversation, but again, your fatigue is not an argument.

As for your historical points: I know about the Great Society. And yes, it was a high point for universalist messaging. But Democrats didn’t lose because they passed Medicare. They lost because they failed to sustain the emotional and institutional ground needed to hold that coalition together, especially when the right countered with culture war, racial division, and a narrative of resentment. That’s exactly the terrain I’m saying Democrats still haven’t learned to navigate.

You asked me to show curiosity about your experience. Fair enough. But maybe extend a little in return. I don’t need an introduction to the Great Society: I’m asking why Democrats haven’t built anything like it since. And why, when that legacy is invoked, it’s often to shut down critique rather than to rekindle its spirit.

And that’s the point: I’m not claiming what I’m proposing has never been imagined. I’m saying the party hasn’t consistently fought for it; not with coherence, not with emotional resonance, not with strategic clarity. Not in a generation.

I know the problem isn’t simple. I’ve said repeatedly that bias, cultural grievance, and fear of inclusion are real barriers. But naming those barriers is not the same as accepting them as immovable. You conclude that solidarity failed because people didn’t want it. I conclude that the attempt was real but incomplete, and that the only alternative to trying again is accepting permanent minority rule.

If you’ve truly given up on reaching disaffected voters, just say so. But don’t attack others for refusing to do the same.

1. You haven't really accepted that they are conclusions rather than biases. That's the problem. When you use language like, "just slap a label on them and be done with it," that is disrespectful. It just is. It's a caricature and it's based on nothing. I have no issues being challenged. It's not as if I've avoided these discussions with you. What I hear, time and again, is a slightly longer version of "you're just out of touch." Or, as you're putting it in this post, just giving up. Caricature is not respectful.

I try very hard not to caricature you, and to argue against what you're actually saying. I might not be perfect in that regard, but I think I'm pretty good. you might note how often I defend your positions against critiques that, in my view, miss the mark. Because ultimately we want the same things, including a commitment to truth. That's not the same as a commitment to agreeing on everything. That's not required. The distortions and caricatures are simply unnecessary.

2. I wouldn't have thought you needed an introduction to the Great Society, but you've been saying repeatedly that you want to do something the Dems have never done before. Those were your words, not mine. I didn't make you write that. Take responsibility for what you write. It's OK if you were sloppy but acknowledge it instead of continuing to double, triple, quintuple down. I can't tell you how many times I've read that exact thought from you: "Dems have never tried this, the closest they came was Bernie."

3. You are wrong that the party didn't fight for it. That was the 1970s politics in a nutshell -- that and inflation/gas prices. We abandoned it because we got our clocks cleaned throughout the 1980s (a period of time for which you theories struggle to explain). Jimmy Carter appointed more black judges in his one term, I think, than all Republicans have appointed in the entire history of their party. There are so many court cases from the 1970s about busing and affirmative action. And note: a lot of the most contentious legal fights were about integrating labor unions.

The reality is that segregation and racism fucked up our country to the point where measures like busing and affirmative action were necessary for desegregation to be meaningful. Courts didn't want to order busing, but it was the only way to combat the bullshit school district rezoning that was going on everywhere to avoid integration. The busing was extremely unpopular; most of it was ended; and that was a catalyst for the right. But what would you have us do? Let them get around Brown v Board by drawing school district lines?

If you can't grapple with that history, then your prescriptions don't mean much. I have seen little evidence that you have reckoned with that problem. Now maybe the 1970s was a bad time to do complete desegregation and today there would be more interracial cooperation. It's not impossible. If you want to make that your project, go for it. I'm supportive. I'd donate to the cause. Just don't tell me that we've never tried it. Just don't tell me that we gave up on it because donor class. It was an agenda that died on the vine because it was extremely unpopular, because material interests have never been the only or even the primary story of American history.

4. I'm not given up on reaching disaffected voters. You should know that. Who else is providing creative thoughts like media shows or reintroducing religion Warnock-style. You've embraced some of those things. The closing to Warnock's DNC speech was exactly what you're talking about. It was a universalist message of solidarity. That's what made it so resonant for me -- I've watched it a dozen times and I still get goosebumps.

But nobody else has been talking about it -- not at the time and not now. That's part of your point, and it's valid (you might also note how frequently I give credit where it's due, even in argumentative discussions).

At the same time, discretion is the better part of valor. You seem to want to fight old battles, at least to some extent. Battles that we lost. And fine, maybe we can fight them again. Maybe we could win this time. I'm open to all of that -- but you will fail if you don't learn the lessons from the past. If you can't understand why the Democrats became the DNC, then you will be about as successful as the Democrats were in the 1980s. It wasn't donors. They came later. It was the 1980 election, 1984 and especially 1988. Those weren't Trump "blowouts." They were real blowouts. We got our asses kicked up and down, every which way. There was a need for reinvention, and the DNC was the way to go.

This also gets to some of the criticisms of Bill Clinton by younger progressives. Sure, Clinton's presidency didn't live up to its potential for a number of reasons. Let's assume for argument that those flaws were perfectly evident in 1992. So why did people like me go with it? BECAUSE WE WERE TIRED OF LOSING. You've never lived through a losing streak like that. You think Trump-Biden-Trump is bad? What about Reagan-Reagan-Bush-almost Bush again until the conventions that year?

 

[ZenMode]

Not true.

The party is trying to build legislation to basically make being LBGTQ illegal. If the leadership has its way LBGTQ people would have to hide.

lol...ok.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

If you think that's funny, you'll love learning about the rates of suicide, sexual and violent assault, and murder among trans people. Knee-slapping stuff.

If you can pull yourself away from thinking about women's testicles, maybe look into it.

 

[hedge]

Why hasn’t this mythical “lean Dem” vote materialized despite massive spending and data-driven outreach?

You talk about stories and narratives that will resonate with voters. Often it is personalities that resonate with voters. When the next Obama or Bill Clinton materializes, so will the Dem vote. Were Biden's policies and narratives really much different than Obama's? I would say no. But Biden isn't Obama. Trump is the Obama of the right. We've seen time and again that it hardly matters what story Trump tells, his supporters eat it up, even if it contradicts what he said yesterday...

 

[superrific]

One of the persistent myths on the left is that the Dem agenda is super-popular, as evidence by all those polls showing majority support for Dem policies.

In America, people don't vote on the basis of their 8th priority. It doesn't really matter if people would, in the abstract, support some sort of unionization drive, unless it's important to them.

This is how the divide and conquer always works. Get half the population to decide that some non-existent or grossly exaggerated issue is a threat to everyone, so they make that their #1 issue and they vote accordingly.

This is also why Dobbs didn't generate the lopsided female vote we were expecting. Lots of women care about abortion and are pro-choice. They just don't care about it enough to share a picnic table with a Mexican.

 

[UNCatTech]

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

Consider the lies of the trump administration.

He convinced people that he was protecting the children, by convincing people that kids could go to school a bit and come home a girl. Then they added the angle of tax payer money being spent on criminals because of a statement from Harris and one verified occurrence.

That combined with low knowledge voters that believe that the trans population is 20% and is scared that it is contagious...

And you have what we see.