Democrats Less Popular Than Trump
The polls are showing a really weird dynamic.
Not surprisingly, unleashing a set of wildly unpopular policies that has, among other things, destroyed billions of dollars worth of retirement savings, has had a negative impact on President Trump’s approval. More surprisingly, frustrations about the failure to stop Trump—and internal disagreements over how best to respond to him—have seemingly hurt Democrats even more.
Pew Research Center (“Trump’s Job Rating Drops, Key Policies Draw Majority Disapproval as He Nears 100 Days“):
With President Donald Trump’s second term approaching its 100-day mark, 40% of Americans approve of how he’s handling the job – a decline of 7 percentage points from February.
And, even as Trump continues to receive high marks from his strongest supporters, several of his key policy actions are viewed more negatively than positively by the public:
- 59% of Americans disapprove of the administration’s tariff increases, while 39% approve.
- 55% disapprove of the cuts the administration is making to federal departments and agencies, while 44% approve.
Trump’s use of executive authority also comes in for criticism: 51% of U.S. adults say he is setting too much policy via executive order. Far smaller shares say he is doing about the right amount (27%) or too little (5%) through executive orders.
With many of the administration’s actions facing legal challenges in federal courts, there is widespread – largely bipartisan – sentiment that the administration would have to end an action if a federal court deemed it illegal.
- 78% say the Trump administration should have to follow a federal court’s ruling, rising to 88% if the Supreme Court were to issue the ruling.
- 91% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans say the administration would need to stop an action if a federal court ruled it illegal, rising to 95% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans for a Supreme Court ruling.
Gallup (“Trump’s First-Quarter Approval Rating Below Average, at 45%“):
President Donald Trump is closing out the first quarter of his second term in office with an average 45% job approval rating, higher than the 41% earned in his first term but well below all other post-World War II presidents elected in the U.S. The average first-quarter rating for all presidents elected from 1952 to 2020 is 60%.
[…]
Trump’s first-quarter average for his second term includes his latest 44% approval rating, from an April 1-14 poll, with 53% of Americans currently disapproving of the way he is handling his job. This is in line with the previous three readings during his second term. Of these, his highest individual approval rating this year was the first one — 47% in January.
Partisans’ ratings of Trump are stable, with 90% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats expressing approval of the president’s job performance. Independents’ current 37% approval has been steady since February but is nine percentage points lower than their inaugural rating of Trump.
The latest poll was conducted during a period of economic turbulence in the U.S. as positive employment and gross domestic product reports in early April were overshadowed by Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs on April 2. Those tariffs triggered a sharp stock market decline. Despite a temporary 90-day pause on some tariffs by Trump on April 9 and the easing of other terms since then, market instability has persisted. Some economists warn of a potential recession, citing declining consumer confidence, volatile markets and signs of slowing growth.
NYT (“Trump’s Approval Rating Has Been Falling Steadily, Polling Average Shows“):
President Trump’s job approval rating has fallen steadily during his first three months in office, according to a New York Times average of polling.
Mr. Trump’s approval rating has sunk to about 45 percent, down from 52 percent one week after he took office. Around half of the country now disapproves of his performance, the polling shows.
American presidents typically enter office with a groundswell of support that wanes over time. But Mr. Trump’s approval has been dropping slightly faster than that of his predecessors.
Mr. Trump started his term with the second-lowest approval rating for a president in modern history. The only recent president to have started in a worse position was Mr. Trump the first time he took office.
[…]
Mr. Trump is following through on many of the promises he made as a candidate, but even some supporters have registered concerns about some of his actions. In particular, the sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries have rankled allies and adversaries. The trade war plunged global economic markets into turmoil, before Mr. Trump paused the tariffs for 90 days, citing talks with other countries about new trade deals.
We’re having problems uploading images at the moment but trendline at RealClearPolitics is clear: after a few weeks of having higher approval than disapproval, Trump has been underwater since March 11.
I would hold out more hope that this would lead to a reining in but, alas, the polls also show another consistent trend: Trump’s support remains sky high among Republicans. Moreover, Democrats are taking more heat than Republicans for the state of affairs.
Pew:
The GOP is viewed more favorably than the Democratic Party, a shift from recent years. Views of the Republican Party have trended more positive over the last year, and 43% now have a favorable view. Views of the Democratic Party are little changed over the last few years, with 38% now expressing a favorable view.
Gallup:
Partisans’ ratings of Trump are stable, with 90% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats expressing approval of the president’s job performance. Independents’ current 37% approval has been steady since February but is nine percentage points lower than their inaugural rating of Trump.
[…]
Amid the economic uncertainty in April, 44% of U.S. adults say they have confidence in Trump to recommend or do the right thing for the economy, including 30% with “a great deal” of confidence and 14% with “a fair amount.” Meanwhile, a majority of Americans indicate they have either “only a little” confidence in the president (11%) or “almost none” (44%).
Trust in the economic judgment of all other U.S. leaders rated in the poll is weaker than for Trump, with fewer than four in 10 Americans saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the Republican leaders in Congress in general (39%), Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell (37%), Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (36%) and Senate Republican Leader John Thune (33%).
Public confidence in U.S. Democratic leaders’ economic handling is even lower, including for House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (30%), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (25%) and the Democratic leaders in Congress in general (25%).
One presumes that, so long as Republicans remain enthusiastic, Trump will be undaunted.
That the state of affairs is hurting Democrats more than Republicans, who control the White House and have slim majorities in both Houses of Congress, seems incongruous. But I presume it’s because Democrats are frustrated with the inability of their leaders to stop Trump.
The Atlantic’s John Hendrickson (“What the Democratic Infighting Reveals“) sees something broader happening.
The phrase in disarray has dogged the Democratic Party for years, but what’s happening now is something more profound and consequential. As Donald Trump approaches the 100th day of his second term, Democrats appear to lack a shared understanding of the depth of their situation—never mind how to address it.
Today’s Democratic infighting isn’t merely about how to win in 2026 or 2028. Rather, it’s an asymmetrical conversation about priorities. Should Democrats focus on fighting Trump’s autocratic actions and on pushing harder than ever to ensure the rights of vulnerable communities? Or should they tack to the middle to woo disillusioned Trump voters? Meanwhile, Democrats also need to figure out how to serve voters in their own base who are fed up with the party’s ineffectiveness. A recent Gallup poll was, in a word, abysmal, finding that only 25 percent of respondents had confidence in Democratic congressional leaders—an all-time low.
[…]
While Trump keeps rolling back LGBTQ rights, certain Democrats appear to view the fight for transgender liberties, for example, as merely a losing campaign issue and relic of the mid-2010s culture war. In the eyes of some Democrats, the obligation to push back against Trumpism seems sublimated to the more practical goals of winning elections and securing majorities. But in trying to woo disaffected Trump voters, they may be disaffecting loyal Democratic voters who fear the party is abandoning important issues.
[…]
What all this Democratic infighting has ultimately revealed is that the party has entered its “post” era. Democrats are post-Biden, post-Harris, post-Obama. Some would like to believe that the party is alternatively post-Sanders or post-Carville. But another way to look at it is that Democrats have entered a “pre” era. The lack of clear direction may not instill much confidence among Democratic voters, but open-endedness could be an opportunity for the party. The next leader may soon step up. But for that leader to rise, everyone needs to get out of one another’s way.
That the party is having a fight over its future is likely healthy for the long term. But it puts it on a back foot in trying to deal with the present moment.
Like it or not, Donald Trump has been the central figure in American politics for a decade now. His infamous ride down the escalator at his eponymous tower to announce his run for the 2016 Republican nomination was June 16, 2015. Hardly a day has gone by since—including during the four-year presidency of Joe Biden—when Trump wasn’t the most prominent figure in political news coverage.
Democrats have had conflicting messages. On the one hand, Trump is an existential threat to American democracy and it is everyone’s duty to rally against him. On the other hand, much of the leadership remains committed to pushing the envelope on progressive policies that make it harder to attract the support of the sort of people who voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney but find Trump repugnant.
It would seem intuitive that the mere existence of Trump, the most unpopular President ever, as the leader of the opposition would render the only viable alternative—the Democratic Party—popular. But it hasn’t worked out that way.
While the James Carvilles of the world are urging the party to become a more centrist, catch-all party, the trend is decidedly in the other direction. As the Nancy Pelosis and Dick Durbins fade into retirement, they’ll naturally be replaced by significantly younger, more progressive politicians. That’ll be more satisfying for most of the nominating electorate but a less effective counter to MAGA extremism.
This assessment has my approval.
It seems to me that part of the reason Democrats are less popular than Trump is pretty straightforward.
1. Trump still largely has his supporters on board.
2. Dems have none of the Reps approving of them plus a lot of Dem voters are upset they aren’t doing more.
As such, Dem disapproval is more about Trump than it is about Dems, per se.
Further, it doesn’t mean that the disapproval in question equals more Rep votes from the Dems who are unhappy.
@Steven L. Taylor:
X 1,000.
Chris Murphy, one my CT Senators, is a good guy. But until I see something, anything, I won’t vote for him again. (Don’t get me started on Blumenthal)
C’mon people…the foundations of Democracy are being shaken…DO SOMETHING!!!
@Steven L. Taylor: Welp, I was going to look at the crosstabs before posting this opinion, but now I don’t have to. Thanks!
” A recent Gallup poll was, in a word, abysmal, finding that only 25 percent of respondents had confidence in Democratic congressional leaders—an all-time low.”
I wonder if one way to address this would be to hold a 10-10-10 Summit. First, ten “mea culpas” where past (and potentially future) Democratic leaders publicly admit, at least in hindsight, the key things they did wrong. Maybe 2 from Hillary, 2 from Obama, 2 from Biden, 2 from Kamala, and 2 from a Dem leader (Schumer? Carville?). Second, 10 things the Republicans are doing that current or future Dems actually think are worthy of adopting in some form. Third, the 10 most important things the same Dems pledge to do for voters in the future, along with a pledge to be accountable for their relative success or failure, within a set time period. (And it would be interesting to see if any items from the second group make it into the third).
The point, of course, would be for politicians to start acting a bit less like traditional partisans who never admit making mistakes. Mind you, I’m not holding my breath for any of this to happen – in some cases, if would probably mean revising public statements already made.
The Trump administration is telling the courts to get stuffed on rights we understand as fundamental to democracy. The idea that you just have to behave exactly in a way that doesn’t offend in order to gain support for these rights is sinking the Democrats. Even the likes of Bill Kristol is happy to say Abolish ICE.
You can’t lead without breaking a few eggs. Right now, if you think the eggs to break are the ones which are too empathetic and concerned with human rights you are a fool.
And this when whatever impact Trump’s first 90-days actions have yet to be thought about outside those who obsessively follow the chattering class where each side preaches doom or salvation as supports their side.
If you’re in the minority and have very little leverage to accomplish things, then the best avenue is to engage in negative partisanship. Focus on incompetence and corruption. Don’t waste your time on what you are planning to do. No one cares.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I agree with the post, I’ll campaign for and vote for any D on my ballot, but I’m pretty unhappy with the D Party right now. And while the low rating may not generate crossover votes, I fear it will affect turnout, and fundraising. The last several fundraising appeals I’ve received have been returned with notes to the effect of, “Show me you’ll fight before next time you show up with your hand out.” I realize nobody will read them, but what you gonna do?
See my comment in the open forum. I’m tired of arguments about policy. Pick something and fight.
When was the last time James Carville won an election? And did triangulation in the 1990s do anything to slow the rise of the far right in American politics?
I don’t think it’s a given that the younger politicians will be more progressive. Sinema was a younger politician, and Fetterman is now.
I’d like more progressive politicians, but I’d settle for people who can speak to values and have a visible spine. All too often we just get younger versions of what we have.
This goes to the question of how much policies matter, or whether the voters are voting more on vibes.
If 88% of the country thinks that Trump has to obey Supreme Court rulings, and 44% approve of Trump, then we have at least … (44 – (100 – 88)) … 32% who have absolutely no idea what is going on day to day.
There’s no magic mix of policies that will appeal to the median voter and bring along the left… or the right. Trump is far more popular than his policies, so we know the right isn’t thinking that way.
Republicans are really good about having a small set of core ideas and tying everything back to them. Christianity is under attack aka “religious freedom” — all of the social issues. Foreigners are taking advantage of America — everything from immigration to tariffs to climate change.
Democrats have… a set of carefully managed policy preferences to try to appeal to the median voter and a growing frustration that the median voter does not understand that the Democrats have a set of carefully managed policy preferences to appeal to them.
We need clear core values, and for every Democrat who is getting any time in the media to repeat those values and tie things into those values. I don’t think the median voter can tell you what Democrats stand for.
We need a leader. We have Chuck Schumer (approval rating, 25%)
I dont think this is surprising. I am have no idea what would actually shake the faith of the Trump cult (of personality). They may occasionally have some doubts about his individual acts or policies but they will still support him no matter what he does or says.
As an aside, this makes politics so much different. For the older people here who made it a point to real older conservative writers and leaders going back to Burke and many others or even more recently Reagan, the GOP is now completely captured not by any coherent political philosophy or ideas, but just whatever Trump happens to believe or say today, and it might change tomorrow.
Steve
I’ve been reading a book called, The Unaccountability Machine. It looks at control of complex systems from a cybernetic point of view, cybernetics being not about computers but about information handling. It sees it as necessary for a system to have five levels of control.
Stafford Beer it turns out, isn’t an IPA, but an early British cybernetics theorist and management consultant. The underlying theme is that an effective control system has to be more complex than the system controlled. But modern systems, corporate and government, are exceeding the capacity of their control systems. He cites as an example FOX News (sic), which didn’t intend to lie about voting machines and end up paying a huge judgement, but their controls weren’t up to preventing it.
Seems to me the D Party is sorely lacking in four and five. And not great at two and three. What is the Democratic Party? Shit if I know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. The GOPs are more effective right now because the Kochtopus, for lack of a better term, provides the higher functions. They do know what they are. They’d never admit it in public, but they know.
I can totally get behind this. It goes hand in hand with what I said about using negative partisanship. And focusing on corruption and incompetence.
Make It Painful to Collaborate with Trump
I interpret those numbers to mean that Trump’s base numbers are still firm, around 40% is pretty much Trump’s core MAGA support. I think he could go even lower, maybe to around 33% and still experience no political pain. He clearly is not in trouble … yet.
During the civil war, moderates kept saying that the emancipation proclamation was a mistake that would just alienate pro-slavery people who might otherwise support the union.
In fact it revitalized support for the war because it gave the war a purpose beyond abstract “preserve the union”
That is the Democratic Party’s actual problem. They can’t inspire because they have no cause beyond “status quo for status quo’s sake”
You get more followers by inspiring them to follow, not by telling them there is nothing they need to do
@Scott:
This is really it. From a web search:
Republicans hit all-time low in Gallup poll. Is shutdown to blame? (9 Oct 2013, Christian Science Monitor)
CNN Poll: Opinion of the Republican Party falls to all-time low (25 Sept 2017)
Republican Party’s popularity drops to 24-year low (29 Apr 2016, MSNBC)
So Republicans were at an all-time low and more unpopular than Clinton in 1998, before flipping the White House in 2000.
At an all-time low and more unpopular than Obama in 2013, before flipping the Senate in 2014 en route to winning the in 2016 admist more polling lows.
Weren’t too popular early in Trump’s first term either, before Blue Wave 2018.
Throughout, Republicans weren’t too distressed about McConnell’s unpopularity. They just kept on keeping on, pressing their priorities. When out of power, that meant opposing Democrats. They didn’t reconsider their unpopular positions on abortion and healthcare.
Similarly, Democrats could benefit now from less handwringing postmortem self-flagellation, and more unfazed steely determination. I don’t understand why people don’t know what Democrats stand for; the party platform isn’t secret. And the “do something!” crowd is just venting; they have no workable ideas.
Rather than cater to this head-scratching stuff, Dems might stay focused on a) loudly opposing MAGA fascism and b) nominating good candidates, like their Wisconsin nominee that prevailed statewide in last month’s most-expensive-ever court race. The 2028 presidential primary will take care of the rest, regarding direction and leadership.
Till then, this intraparty anguish and agonizing looks weak, at a time when voters desire strength — and when protecting the US demands it.
I just want to snip from the Lincoln quote (from c. 1858 or so, regarding the repeal of the Missouri Compromise) that I posted on the open thread (with emphasis added):
I don’t expect every D politician to support trans rights (or autistic persons rights) the way I do. I have more at stake. I hope that they will learn to stay out of my way, though. I am not striking at them, but at those who would demean, demonize and exterminate from public life those whom I hold dear. I will not be deterred from my purpose. I am not running for office. I am campaigning for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – for myself and for those I love.
“Democrats appear to lack a shared understanding of the depth of their situation—never mind how to address it.”
Obviously, Bill Maher is responsible.
Democrats pretty much lost the battle of Yes/No addresses the standard Democrat tablefare of issues. The key remains to invent/repackage a NEW set of yes/no initiatives that reshuffle the deck of electoral factions.
For comparison, Republicans also lost the yes/no battle during the Obama administration. They did not reload the same initiatives and attempt to change no to yes. Trump posed ENTIRELY NEW QUESTIONS which brought non-voters and Dem outer factions into his orbit. Hillary probably beats every other Republican candidate out there–but in hindsight Trump’s offer to the electorate seemed beneath making a vigorous case against.
Biden won in 2020, but only thanks to COVID-19. Not because the electorate was persuaded that NO was the correct answer to Trump’s course for the Nation.
There are 1000s of policy positions that influence the working of the Federal Govt. I would expect the Party of creatives and Academics could find a handful that are in need of a remix and used the next 12 months trial running them to see which few have staying power in the American psyche.
One thing is for sure, the old themes are not the way out if the dungeon. Do people need Healthcare Care? Sure do! But it is but one of 1000s of other policies that voters of today have no interest in hearing a story about. You have to sell to the readers you have–not the readers you wish you had
But seriously, after most of you get out of the neo lib bubble (for the record, I am old school New Deal Democrat – yeah, those old bastards that controlled the House for 56 out of 60 years and the Senate for 48 out of 60 years 1932 – 1992, kicked the schite out of the rich with 90% marginal rates and never had a major bank failure till Reagan because we constrained finance capital with Glass Steagall) you will find the reason why we are toxic as a Party. (For evidence, just read the comments I will engender to my post – “Fuck FDR, you’re a neo Nazi bla bla Go vote for Trump” and those will be the nice retorts).
There is a willful ignorance as to why we LOST. If Joe would have done what he did last June 3 years earlier vis-a-vis shutting down the border, maybe Harris ekes out a win. By Dec. the border was reduced to a trickle. It’s not an issue now. Would that have killed you neo libs? Apparently so.
Let’s say, we support any trans gender to full rights and protections, but allowing 10 or 12 year olds to have gender operations or hormone treatments will have to wait till 16. Had we advocated strongly for “adult” (over 16 protections and ceded the elementary/middle school student argument) trans gender equality, maybe Harris wins. Would it have killed you neo libs to support this compromise. Apparently so.
As for the 12 trans gendered college athletes competing in the men’s division, could the Dems have proposed 3 categories? Male/Female/Trans? Did so many Dems have to waste so much political capital on so few who are affected? This is such a tiny issue compared to let’s say, the fall of the West’s security and financial system, cut backs on social security, Medicare and the meat axe DOGE firings. However, some equate these trans issues with slavery and 350 years of white oppression of African Americans. Hint: It’s not. Would it have killed you neo libs to compromise on this terribly unpopular position? Apparently so.
Result. WE LOST. Now, the pushback will be I should lick my own a ss hole, we lost because voters are racist, misogynist scum, etc. But I harken back to what Claire McCaskill said while in a state of shock election night when it was clear we lost all the 7 “firewall” swing states: “I think our party has to admit that Donald Trump knows the country and it’s voters better than we do.” BINGO!!!!
Until we stop the woke bulschite of gender, race, whitey is basically a racist, we lose. We need to replace DEI with good ol’ fashioned class consciousness and posit the rich elite v. the common man. No one thinks that a poor white kid in Appalachia has a better shot at success than Malia or Sasha do they? Bernie (who some despise here) is the most popular lib. He is authentic and has been railing against the “oligarchs” since the early 90s. Yet he is a pariah to the DNC.
Bernie appeals to the white high school graduate working class midwestern voter. The truth is, the free trade pacts championed by Clinton and Obama have been disastrous to the working class as has the never ending stream of cheap, illegal labor that the Dems take a blind eye to.
Assumptions that free markets would raise all boats led Democrats to shift away from support for unions and good blue-collar jobs to a focus on global trade and cheap consumer goods. The subsequent hollowing-out of American industry led to the anger that fuels the far right. A 2020 poll found that being “American” was an important part of the identity of 79% of Americans with (at most) high school degrees, but only 43% of predominantly college-educated progressive activists. In short, the common “man” thinks the Dems care more about getting Pedro the illegal admission to UCLA Law School rather than the laid off industrial worker whose life is obliterated by the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector to teenage Asians.
Until we reign in the far left zealots pushing failed, unpopular positions, we lose.
@The Q:
I stopped reading there because you’re way off.
No one gets gender affirming surgery at 10 or 12, nor does anyone advocate for that. the exception are intersex children, who get “fixed” to fit binary sex standards in the first months of life.
No one gets hormones that young either. Trans children get hormone blockers, to keep from developing puberty of their assigned gender. And that cannot be put off until age 16. Imagine a trans girl developing facial hair and a deep voice, or a trans boy developing breasts and wide hips.
Most of that is hard and painful and expensive to fix, and the fix isn’t that great.
Get your facts straight or kindly stay out of it.
@The Q: Dude, what is your deal? No one blamed Maher for anything other than what he said.
@The Q:
Maybe you should try and respond to what people actually say rather than inventing dialogue in your head?
@Kathy:
Some Berniebros are too addled on victim-mentality paranoia and outright false rightwing propaganda to fact check. Is it any wonder these guys love dudes like Maher, who was just out spreading the easily-debunked AfD/MAGA lie that Arab countries haven’t taken Syrian refugees?
If they’d step out of their Berniebro bubble, they’d notice there’s zero electoral evidence Bernie and his acolytes have viter appeal to white working class midtwesterners. What do Bernieacs win outside of very blue states or very blue liberal/urban district?
In fact, Harris got a slightly larger vote share in Bernie’s own lily white Vermont than did Mr. NRA turned Mr. Popular himself. Oops.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Standard keyboard warrior. Always with a mismash of paranoid anger, hallucinated voices, and rightwing propaganda fake facts that wouldn’t win any Democrat any election anywhere. (Imagine pining over 90% marginal tax rates and thinking you’re not the far left zealot. Delulu.)
If these slactivists ever ran for office spewing their contradictory falsehood-filled nonsense, they’d lose spectacularly. That’s why like Maher, another unelectable egoist, they don’t run anything but their mouths.
I think it’s important to remember that if Q is really a FDR New Deal Dem, that he’s a minimum of 114 years old. Even if he’s only the child of ND Democrats, he’s still in his late 80s or early 90s at a minimum. It’s bad decorum to be disrespectful to someone that advanced in years. Cut the man a little slack and remind him of his role setting the example for others.
@The Q: You really should consider how the overall rudeness with which you approach the others in this forum diminishes you and detracts from the force of what you’re trying to say. You come off like an old man shouting at the clouds. It’s a bad look.
@DK:
Bigotry is not only born out of ignorance, but thrives in it.
Regarding trans people, the Democrats exerted no leadership and dove headfirst into a moral panic. Clinton may have sold out gay rights, but—for the most part–Democrats of his generation understood that it was ballsy and brave to come out as a gay person. They compromised but given the homophobia of the time, they kept free of the insane panic. DLC centrists weren’t stroking their chins at the ‘heterodox’ views of some troglodyte Evangelical advocating conversion therapy.
With trans people, the exact opposite occurred. The real heretics weren’t trans kids in the middle of nowhere risking everything by digging deep into who they are but potato-shaped pundits making 300K a year who were just asking questions on twitter. And don’t forgot Jordan Peterson and Dave Chapelle…Mainstream Democrats were weak and bought this manner of thinking. It was a fatal mistake. The conformist who thinks they’re the heretic can’t be compromised with. It’s a great gig as a pundit churning out weekly slop, but outside of that it’s a useless position.
@Modulo Myself:
If one believes DADT and DOMA = Clinton sold out the gays (I don’t), it seems odd to compare that record favorably against the Biden-era Dems passing no anti-trans laws.
What Biden-Harris did, over in real life:
✓ AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
✓ BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW
✓ INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
✓ CHIPS & SCIENCE ACT
✓ PACT ACT
✓ EMMETT TILL ANTILYNCHING ACT
✓ POSTAL SERVICE REFORM ACT
✓ BIPARTISAN SAFER COMMUNITIES ACT
✓ VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 2.0
✓ RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
Whither the pro-trans hill or anti-trans panic?
It’s not Biden or Harris (or recently-elected swing state Dem governors/senators like Gallego, Rosen, Baldwin, Stein, Shapiro, Hobbs, Evers, Slotkin, Kelly, Warnock, Whitaker etc) obsessing on trans people.
Like they were once manipulated into obsessing over Hillary’s emails, it’s certain Americans, particularly men left and right, who are hyoerfocused on genitals — and projecting their hysteria onto Dem candidates and politicians.
Dems can’t take their eye off the ball (obstruct fascism, run good candidates) to play wet nurse to the neuroses of the modern American male.
Maybe podcasts and locker room talk can help US men figure out why some of us are convinced Dems are all-in on trans operations for preteens (fake news) while others are equally sure Dems are pushing Chappelle-style transphobia.
Both cannot be true. The invented alternate reality where this paradox is true makes the US look as nutty as our former allies are now convinced we are.
@The Q:
Look, I’m much more tolerant of the ignorant than I am of the judgemental. However, I feel I have a duty to my family to point out the ignorance with regards to trans children that you have put on display.
So. There are hormones and there are hormone blockers. These are not the same thing. Not at all. Hormone blockers are reversable. Go off them and the hormones kick in and do all the things they would have done if you hadn’t been blocking them. They were developed to treat early onset puberty, which is a thing among children, especially girls roughly age 8.
If we were to wait until 16 years of age to apply hormone blockers, all manner of things – undesirable things from the point of view of the trans child and those who care for them – would happen because of their natural hormones. They might grow breasts or facial hair, or they might get an adam’s apple, or increased deposits on their jaw or forehead that are markers of gender.
There are lots of other things. Yes, there are trans people out there who cope with not getting this, but it would have been much easier for them if they could have gone on blockers at least to stop the changes of puberty.
For instance, I have spent a lot of money on laser and electrostatic facial hair removal for my (trans) daughter. Blockers would have been much better.
So, you are just some dude on the internet spouting off about how everybody else is stupid. Which is pretty darn normal. I’ve done it a few times. I really hope actual politicians know more about the subject that they make these “compromises” on than the average person on the internet.
@Jay L Gischer: Also, why on earth do you (or anybody else) think you have a better idea of what’s good for a child than their parents and their doctors?
@DK:
But, they kind of have to. This doesn’t require sacrificing minorities, but fragile men need their egos gently stroked if they are going to vote for Dems. Clinton’s campaign commercials had so few white men it was noticeable. Harris’s wasn’t as bad, but not great. representation matters, even white male representation.
That and the media. For the love of god will a Democratic campaign actually just accept that The NY Times is a bunch of whiny babies and that if they don’t get regular exclusives they will have a temper tantrum and run 100 articles about how Joe Biden is too old, or how Clinton has email problems — and a lot of other media follows the NY Times. Just treat it like a battleground state that has to be campaigned in.
@Gustopher: A lot of people noticed Joe Biden was old. Democrats have no idea how badly they hurt themselves by lying about him. It hurt Harris and it’s not going away. As time passes it becomes easier to admit the emperor was naked. Campaign books are revealing how far gone Biden was. Trump, no matter how weird he is, is vital in a way that only highlights how paralyzed the last administration was. The left claiming Trump is senile, after pretending Biden wasn’t, only makes them look worse. Face it, the last major Democratic initiative was denying the truth to the American people.
We did all these things:
What Biden-Harris did, over in real life:
✓ AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
✓ BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW
✓ INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
✓ CHIPS & SCIENCE ACT
✓ PACT ACT
✓ EMMETT TILL ANTILYNCHING ACT
✓ POSTAL SERVICE REFORM ACT
✓ BIPARTISAN SAFER COMMUNITIES ACT
✓ VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 2.0
✓ RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
AND WE STILL LOST!!!!!
That’s my point that seems to escape everyone. If you think we keep the same policies of open borders, trans issues and just focus on what an idiot Trump is and expect to (if by Nov 2026 the economy is pumping) win, then you are more delusional than I ever imagined.
@The Q: It would help your case if, in fact, Harris had campaigned on one borders (she did not) and had made trans rights a centerpiece of her campaign (she did not).
You are fighting ghosts.
We did all these things:
What Biden-Harris did, over in real life:
✓ AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
✓ BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW
✓ INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
✓ CHIPS & SCIENCE ACT
✓ PACT ACT
✓ EMMETT TILL ANTILYNCHING ACT
✓ POSTAL SERVICE REFORM ACT
✓ BIPARTISAN SAFER COMMUNITIES ACT
✓ VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 2.0
✓ RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
AND WE STILL LOST!!!!!
That’s my point that seems to escape everyone. If you think we keep the same policies of open borders, trans issues and just focus on what an idiot Trump is and expect to (if by Nov 2026 the economy is pumping) win, then you are more delusional than I ever imagined.
Human sacrifices have a dismal record.