Should Democrats make any changes to their current approach to regain favor and support from voters?

[rahl]

Okay. Can you identify an extant stateless society?

No, that’s the point. It’s an unworkable libertarian brain fart. They (not all though) advocate for a stateless society saying the market will simply handle everything.

 

[Gatsby]

What demands? Why would activists have demands if American corporations and Donald Trump are siding with them? It makes no sense.

The radical LGBTQ movement was calling unpopularly for the right to marry back in 2016. So again, this makes no sense.

And when the Supreme Court handed them a win, the LGB movement celebrated and declared victory and went home. Whereas the T decided this would be a good time to push for transing the kids and housing male rapists with women.

Again, support for gays was once a loser.

Yup. And Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in his first term, very wisely didn't try to push for gay marriage. They supported more moderate reforms that moved the needle toward more civil rights.

It became a winner, so the hard right pivoted to transgenders and changed people's minds about them.

They didn't change people's minds, everyone was perfectly capable of seeing pictures of Drag Queen Story Hour, or watching "I am Jazz," or see their cities paint the streets with the trans flag, or hearing Elizabeth Warren say she would let a trans child vet her pick for Secretary of Education, or hearing Kamala Harris advocate for taxpayer-funded sex changes for convicted felons and illegal immigrants.

Republicans didn't force anyone to do those things, they merely took advantage of their political incentives and highlighted leftists acting insane.

Keeping this in mind - that minds can and do change, changing policy with the wind, in this case, as you suggest, sounds worse than doing nothing.

Yes, minds can change. Maybe in 30 years, the voters will be loudly demanding puberty blockers for kids. Then nominate those candidates in 30 years.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, they're the result of supermarkets having small profit margins, making them unsustainable in certain communities. So how does the Free Market solve that?

Do you believe grocery stores in NYC are operating in a free market now?

 

[j brown's body]

And when the Supreme Court handed them a win, the LGB movement celebrated and declared victory and went home. Whereas the T decided this would be a good time to push for transing the kids and housing male rapists with women.


Yup. And Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in his first term, very wisely didn't try to push for gay marriage. They supported more moderate reforms that moved the needle toward more civil rights.


They didn't change people's minds, everyone was perfectly capable of seeing pictures of Drag Queen Story Hour, or watching "I am Jazz," or see their cities paint the streets with the trans flag, or hearing Elizabeth Warren say she would let a trans child vet her pick for Secretary of Education, or hearing Kamala Harris advocate for taxpayer-funded sex changes for convicted felons and illegal immigrants.

Republicans didn't force anyone to do those things, they merely took advantage of their political incentives and highlighted leftists acting insane.


Yes, minds can change. Maybe in 30 years, the voters will be loudly demanding puberty blockers for kids. Then nominate those candidates in 30 years.

You just have issue with it because you oppose trans, not neccesarily because its a political loser. In that regard, I have given examples of how Dems can defuse the trans issue. Its hardly worth riding for 6 pages here.

 

[aociswundumho]

Their raising star in the New York mayor race seems to be the current darling.

When he wins it's going to supercharge progressives like nothing else has in a long time. They are going to push the democratic party left whether it wants to go or not.

 

[aociswundumho]

Rather than run from DEI, a Dem should say: "Studies tell us that a more diverse organization is more robust.

If that were true you wouldn't have to pressure companies to do it.

 

[j brown's body]

If that were true you wouldn't have to pressure companies to do it.

They aren't pressured to do it. They are pressured to stop doing it.

 

[aociswundumho]

Who campaigned with conservatives and avoided any messaging on progressive issues.

She supported medicare for all right up to her running for president. Then she dropped it.

 

[j brown's body]

She supported medicare for all right up to her running for president. Then she dropped it.

Fir a more moderate position, btw.

And then lost.

 

[Gatsby]

You just have issue with it because you oppose trans, not neccesarily because its a political loser. In that regard, I have given examples of how Dems can defuse the trans issue. Its hardly worth riding for 6 pages here.

There are some issues that I think are unpopular, but not necessarily bad policies (e.g. raising taxes).

There are some issues that I think are bad policies, but not necessarily unpopular (e.g. NIMBYism).

This one grinds my gears because it's right in the middle of that Venn Diagram of unpopular and bad policies. It's a fight that doesn't need to happen at all. Democrats could just drop the whole thing, their electoral fortunes would improve, and the world would be better off.

 

[aociswundumho]

Fir a more moderate position, btw.

And then lost.

post hoc

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[aociswundumho]

Democrats could just drop the whole thing, their electoral fortunes would improve, and the world would be better off.

That would mean abandoning the "oppressor - oppressed" narrative that defines much of left wing ideology.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I have suggested a number of detailed policy proposals on a number of topics.

I believe that Democrats should actually try to win some elections, and then implement those.

You're focused on winning in the absence of an ideology, and thus you end up promoting a losing strategy. You believe that winning is a function poll-tested manipulation and popularism, not actually helping people and leading with a positive message. If something doesn't poll test well, you don't think it's worth adopting into a platform, regardless of whether or not its the right thing to do. Thus you will always be one or two or three steps behind. Republicans are intent on moving popular opinion, while you're bound to polling that is downstream from popular opinion. Progressives are intent on resisting right-wing messaging, and if something miraculously breaks through, then maybe you'll adopt that into platform. It's lazy and lacks sincerity, and voters can smell it.

People stopped believing in Democrats when Democrats stopped believing in anything. It doesn't matter what they say on paper when its clear that they are bound by special interests, protecting a Big Tent (which largely excludes progressives), and are just trying to thread political needles.

 

[j brown's body]

There are some issues that I think are unpopular, but not necessarily bad policies (e.g. raising taxes).

There are some issues that I think are bad policies, but not necessarily unpopular (e.g. NIMBYism).

This one grinds my gears because it's right in the middle of that Venn Diagram of unpopular and bad policies. It's a fight that doesn't need to happen at all. Democrats could just drop the whole thing, their electoral fortunes would improve, and the world would be better off.

Looking at the repressive state policies against them that have ballooned over the past couple of years, I'd rather see the Dems defuse the situation rather than pander to that hatred.

 

[Gatsby]

You're focused on winning in the absence of an ideology, and thus you end up promoting a losing strategy. You believe that winning is a function poll-tested manipulation and popularism, not actually helping people and leading with a positive message.

If you find some Bernie Bros who can win in, say, a Senate race in Kansas, due to "helping people and leading with a positive message," then I will support them enthusiastically. The problem is that you've already tried that strategy a bunch of times and it has never worked once.

If something doesn't poll test well, you don't think it's worth adopting into a platform, regardless of whether or not its the right thing to do.

Mostly accurate. Especially if it's going to *hurt* their chances of getting elected. What's the point in putting something dumb and unpopular into the platform because you've unilaterally decided "it's the right thing to do," if the voters are just going to elect the other candidate who doesn't have it in his platform? What did you accomplish?

Progressives are intent on resisting right-wing messaging, and if something miraculously breaks through, then maybe you'll adopt that into platform.

Right. If you want to run on raising the minimum wage or expanding Medicaid, great, the voters mostly agree with you. Go do that.

It's lazy and lacks sincerity, and voters can smell it.

Oh so you do care about poll-tested manipulation, you just think you've cracked the code on how to do it better.

People stopped believing in Democrats when Democrats stopped believing in anything. It doesn't matter what they say on paper when its clear that they are bound by special interests, protecting a Big Tent (which largely excludes progressives), and are just trying to thread political needles.

Democrats believe in plenty of things, but many of those things are ****ing stupid.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That would mean abandoning the "oppressor - oppressed" narrative that defines much of left wing ideology.

Well, yeah, Left and Right ideology are based on views on power distribution. Left-wing believes there should be no oppressor, Right-wingers believe they should oppress.

 

[bomberfox]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww, that's a tough one to answer. I used to be more middle of the road when democrats were more middle of the road. Now that they have veered so far to the left, falling off the edge of the Earth, I have two answers to the question:

1. my old self would like to see them move more toward the middle and abandon the progressive woke socialist bullshit nonsense and I would vote for them more like I used to

2. if they're not going to do that then, yes, I think they should just keep on doing what they're doing or move even further left. Since I lean right, this would effectively get rid of the democrat party once and for all.

Maga were never middle of the road.

 

[bomberfox]

Another way of saying that is that most people didn't care much back when activist demands were reasonable (e.g. the right to marry and serve in the military) and therefore Republicans also didn't care as much. And then public opinion shifted very hard against the activists when they went completely crazy, and so Republicans naturally took advantage of the political incentives that insane leftists handed to them.


The LGB movement was smart enough to take yes for an answer and go home, instead of upping the ante to crazier and crazier demands. Hence the divergence in their political fortunes.


Here's the problem. Not only is the leftist position unpopular on this topic, it also isn't as morally righteous as you seem to think.

If you have thought about it carefully and concluded that standing up for your beliefs on this issue is worth losing lots of elections, which will not only render progress impossible on lots of other issues but won't even move the needle on this issue...OK. I merely point out that those are very high stakes, and so it might behoove you to think very carefully about whether you are really sure your position is that morally superior to the rest of the country, or if it's possible that you are the one who is wrong.

The LGB alliance movement killed the bill that would have outlawed conversion therapy in the UK so they could stick it to the transes on the way out. They are enemies of people that want to see the practice ended. They are a hateful and spiteful bunch. You dont want trans people to have anything and they would rather more gay people be tortured in conversion therapy than let trans people have anything.

We could have had productive conversations but y’all werent having any of it. Raising taxes on the rich appears to be popular.

 

[j brown's body]

Well, yeah, Left and Right ideology are based on views on power distribution. Left-wing believes there should be no oppressor, Right-wingers believe they should oppress.

Conservatives believe in a well-ordered social hierarchy. Straight, white, cis male at the top. everyone else is under them. Liberals believe in equality. They need to show it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If you find some Bernie Bros who can win in, say, a Senate race in Kansas, due to "helping people and leading with a positive message," then I will support them enthusiastically. The problem is that you've already tried that strategy a bunch of times and it has never worked once.

Build Back Better had 70%+ support in West Virginia. Joe Manchin didn't support it.

Mostly accurate. Especially if it's going to *hurt* their chances of getting elected. What's the point in putting something dumb and unpopular into the platform because you've unilaterally decided "it's the right thing to do," if the voters are just going to elect the other candidate who doesn't have it in his platform? What did you accomplish?

A good definition of morality is what a person is willing to do to get their way. Who they're willing to throw under the bus. Your answer: Anyone necessary.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..." - MLK Jr, Birmingham Jail, 1963

Right. If you want to run on raising the minimum wage or expanding Medicaid, great, the voters mostly agree with you. Go do that.

What part did you play in convincing voters?

Oh so you do care about poll-tested manipulation, you just think you've cracked the code on how to do it better.

No, you're confused. My theory of change is that people can be convinced through positive policy, but the moral foundation has to come first. Your theory of change is conceding to right-wing narratives and offering a less harsh alternative to split the difference. How has that worked out?

Democrats believe in plenty of things, but many of those things are ****ing stupid.

Like Gender Affirming Care, which has saved countless lives and has like a 97% success rate. Far eclipsing virtually any form of psychological or medical care.

But it doesn't poll test well, so I guess those people will have to eat shit and/or die.

 

[Gatsby]

Build Back Better had 70%+ support in West Virginia. Joe Manchin didn't support it.

OK. Nominate a Democratic Senate candidate from West Virginia who is a clone of Jim Justice and Shelley Moore Capito, except he supports some infrastructure spending. Maybe some Medicaid spending and raising the minimum wage too.

The point is, that's all you need to do. You don't need to run Elizabeth Warren in every single Senate seat. One is plenty.

A good definition of morality is what a person is willing to do to get their way. Who they're willing to throw under the bus. Your answer: Anyone necessary.

See, here's the problem with that. If you don't win the election, no one cares who you did or didn't "throw under the bus," because you lost and you aren't going to implement ANY agenda.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..." - MLK Jr, Birmingham Jail, 1963

Well the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act required the votes of plenty of white moderates, so I'll leave it as an exercise to historians to determine if he was right about that.

No, you're confused. My theory of change is that people can be convinced through positive policy, but the moral foundation has to come first. Your theory of change is conceding to right-wing narratives and offering a less harsh alternative to split the difference. How has that worked out?

Much better than yours. There are a number of moderate Democrats who get elected in red states/districts. There are zero Bernie Bros who get elected in red states/districts.

Like Gender Affirming Care, which has saved countless lives and has like a 97% success rate. Far eclipsing virtually any form of psychological or medical care.

Mmmk. If you say so.

 

[CimpleMan]

Raising taxes on the rich appears to be popular.

There's support for raising taxes on Corporations as well.

 

[Deuce]

They should stop being so right wing.

 

[Real blank]

If you are democratically elected to a position, you should uphold the promises you made during your campaign. That doesn’t mean you can’t change your mind, but if you do, you should publicly explain your reasoning.

Obviously this only applies to those elected.

 

[Dans La Lune]

OK. Nominate a Democratic Senate candidate from West Virginia who is a clone of Jim Justice and Shelley Moore Capito, except he supports some infrastructure spending. Maybe some Medicaid spending and raising the minimum wage too.

Well, Dems ran your ideal candidate in West Virginia and he TANKED the policy, which likely contributed to Dems' loss heavily in 2024.

The point is, that's all you need to do. You don't need to run Elizabeth Warren in every single Senate seat. One is plenty.

If you build a party apparatus designed to accommodate the Joe Manchin types, these are the results you get.

See, here's the problem with that. If you don't win the election, no one cares who you did or didn't "throw under the bus," because you lost and you aren't going to implement ANY agenda.

The problem is we tried it your way and it got us Trump twice over. So in the end, was it worth it? If following your strategy led us to this conclusion, what was the point?

Well the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act required the votes of plenty of white moderates, so I'll leave it as an exercise to historians to determine if he was right about that.

You still don't get it. In a democracy, politics is downstream from the will of the people. People (e.g. progressive activists) put pressure on elected leaders, and elected leaders do the thing.

Much better than yours. There are a number of moderate Democrats who get elected in red states/districts. There are zero Bernie Bros who get elected in red states/districts.

To what end?

Mmmk. If you say so.

Overview of Gender-Affirming Care Success Rates​

Gender-affirming care encompasses a range of medical, surgical, and psychosocial interventions designed to align a transgender or gender-diverse person’s body and lived experience with their gender identity. Success in this context is typically measured through patient satisfaction, mental health improvements, reduction in gender dysphoria, and low rates of regret or detransition.

Multiple studies indicate that gender-affirming care is highly effective, with over 95% of recipients reporting improved quality of life and psychological well-being. These outcomes are supported by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the Endocrine Society, which affirm that such care is evidence-based and medically necessary.

Patient Satisfaction and Regret Rates​

Research consistently shows extremely low regret rates following gender-affirming interventions. A 2024 study published in Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery found that 99.7% of trans individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery were satisfied with the results, with only 0.3% requesting reversal.
This aligns with broader findings: a 2022 study in The Lancet reported that 98% of trans youth continued gender-affirming treatment into adulthood, indicating long-term commitment and satisfaction. Regret, when it occurs, is often linked to external factors like social stigma, lack of family support, or surgical complications, rather than a change in gender identity.

For comparison, regret or dissatisfaction rates for common procedures like knee replacement surgery range from 6% to 30%, far exceeding those seen in gender-affirming surgeries.

Mental Health and Well-being Outcomes​

Gender-affirming care is strongly associated with improved mental health outcomes. A study by the Trevor Project found that transgender youth with access to hormone therapy had significantly lower rates of depression and suicide risk. Another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that two years after starting hormone therapy, trans youth reported higher life satisfaction, reduced anxiety, and lower gender dysphoria.

Puberty blockers have also shown profound benefits: research indicates they can reduce suicidality by over 70% in transgender youth compared to those denied care. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other leading health organizations emphasize that early access to care can have lifelong protective effects on mental health.