WarpedBobbie’s pronouns: they/she Warning to trans people who don’t want to hear about another candidate releasing transphobic ads, you can skip this one. I was trying not to write any more diaries…
Remember, it’s your duty to vote for someone who wants you dead, because the other guy wants you even more dead!
I might be incorrect, but I think they are trying to suggest that no election is a standalone choice where the only downstream effect is that one candidate wins over the other. Each election outcome effects the elections that come after it. If a moderate republican won last time they might try to run a more conservative one next time to test the waters. If a progressive dem lost the dems are likely to use that as a reason to not run a progressive next time.
They may be suggesting that voting for an anti trans dem now opens the door for more anti trans or anti-XYZ dems in the future. Do we want to get to a place where the Democratic Party is comfortable running anti choice candidates or anti public school candidates? Basically the idea is to signal to the party that they will not ever win with this message, even against fascists. Along the same line of thinking, but as a rebuttal to what I’m assuming is their conclusion, an R in office might change policies or do harm that a dem may not be able to reverse, regardless of if they win next or not.
I’m not suggesting people not vote for him, and I’m not suggesting vote blue no matter who, I’m just adding some context for how I interpreted the comment. I personally am a vote blue no matter who person so far. Maybe it makes me a coward, maybe it makes me pragmatic, maybe both. I do think I understand trans people withholding their vote if this is their candidate though. I won’t blame them for standing up for themselves, since the rest of us seem willing to throw them under the bus.
That very well may be so, but even still I would argue that the primaries are really the time to hash out policy and candidate positions.
I’m not from Iowa, luckily, but Turek beat his main primary opponent by more than 25%, which suggests he is more tapped into Iowa political leanings than the average online commentator. I’m from Oregon, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that whoever Iowa elects is going to be much more “moderate” than the people who represent me and my state.
Regardless, the choice right now (and it very much is a binary one) is whether Iowa wants to send a Democrat, Turek, or a Republican, Hinton, to the Senate. Come January, it’ll either be Turek or Hinton–a de facto binary outcome. And that singular choice may mean the difference between a slim Democratic majority or a slim Republican one.
What will a Democratic Senate mean for the next two years? It’s hard to be sure, since Trump can be more than a little bit unpredictable. But at the very least it means Democratic control of Senate committees, which will go a long way towards holding the Trump admin at least a little bit accountable for their words and actions. Speaking personally, I would always rather have the Democrats in power than the Republicans, easily.
So again, people should vote with their hearts, without a doubt, but they should also understand the strategies at play and vote with their brains, too.
To be honest, whether it’s FPTP elections or the power dynamics in Washington DC, it is a little bit exhausting to have to explain this stuff every 2 years… But people should be informed about how the system works and vote accordingly.
I’m generally in agreement with you, but I’m not sure how you see this as you having “to explain this stuff every 2 years”. You’re not providing new information to me or the people that disagree with vote blue no matter who. They understand how elections work. They just disagree with you. Sure, an Iowa representative may be more moderate, but it’s possible these voters are unwilling to concede this particular issue to moderate dems. They may believe that preventing dems from winning with anti trans candidates is worth another republican term. I’m not saying they’re right, but you’re not really arguing with that point as much as reiterating that right now there are only two options.
Also, regarding your suggestion that this is something that should be discussed in the primaries, the article does addresses that:
Up until this ad most of the anti-trans ads from the Democrats this cycle had been mostly focused on trans people in sports and a few about treatment for trans children. This one takes a big step past them in it’s attack on the trans community by stating opposition to “Taxpayer funds for sex changes.”
If a politician conceals the extent of their anti trans rhetoric until the general, there’s not much that could have been done. Additionally, even if they hadn’t, if trans people and their allies supported another dem and they lost the primary, all the sudden they are expected to be willing to accept an anti trans candidate. I can understand them being unwilling to support them and possibly next time it will be the other faction that ends up having to be willing to sacrifice their ideals in the primary they want a dem candidate to win the general.
I am not sure how strategic that is, but mainly because Dems don’t generally withhold their votes so there’s not much precedent to see how the party will react.
I might be incorrect, but I think they are trying to suggest that no election is a standalone choice where the only downstream effect is that one candidate wins over the other. Each election outcome effects the elections that come after it. If a moderate republican won last time they might try to run a more conservative one next time to test the waters. If a progressive dem lost the dems are likely to use that as a reason to not run a progressive next time.
They may be suggesting that voting for an anti trans dem now opens the door for more anti trans or anti-XYZ dems in the future. Do we want to get to a place where the Democratic Party is comfortable running anti choice candidates or anti public school candidates? Basically the idea is to signal to the party that they will not ever win with this message, even against fascists. Along the same line of thinking, but as a rebuttal to what I’m assuming is their conclusion, an R in office might change policies or do harm that a dem may not be able to reverse, regardless of if they win next or not.
I’m not suggesting people not vote for him, and I’m not suggesting vote blue no matter who, I’m just adding some context for how I interpreted the comment. I personally am a vote blue no matter who person so far. Maybe it makes me a coward, maybe it makes me pragmatic, maybe both. I do think I understand trans people withholding their vote if this is their candidate though. I won’t blame them for standing up for themselves, since the rest of us seem willing to throw them under the bus.
That very well may be so, but even still I would argue that the primaries are really the time to hash out policy and candidate positions.
I’m not from Iowa, luckily, but Turek beat his main primary opponent by more than 25%, which suggests he is more tapped into Iowa political leanings than the average online commentator. I’m from Oregon, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that whoever Iowa elects is going to be much more “moderate” than the people who represent me and my state.
Regardless, the choice right now (and it very much is a binary one) is whether Iowa wants to send a Democrat, Turek, or a Republican, Hinton, to the Senate. Come January, it’ll either be Turek or Hinton–a de facto binary outcome. And that singular choice may mean the difference between a slim Democratic majority or a slim Republican one.
What will a Democratic Senate mean for the next two years? It’s hard to be sure, since Trump can be more than a little bit unpredictable. But at the very least it means Democratic control of Senate committees, which will go a long way towards holding the Trump admin at least a little bit accountable for their words and actions. Speaking personally, I would always rather have the Democrats in power than the Republicans, easily.
So again, people should vote with their hearts, without a doubt, but they should also understand the strategies at play and vote with their brains, too.
To be honest, whether it’s FPTP elections or the power dynamics in Washington DC, it is a little bit exhausting to have to explain this stuff every 2 years… But people should be informed about how the system works and vote accordingly.
I’m generally in agreement with you, but I’m not sure how you see this as you having “to explain this stuff every 2 years”. You’re not providing new information to me or the people that disagree with vote blue no matter who. They understand how elections work. They just disagree with you. Sure, an Iowa representative may be more moderate, but it’s possible these voters are unwilling to concede this particular issue to moderate dems. They may believe that preventing dems from winning with anti trans candidates is worth another republican term. I’m not saying they’re right, but you’re not really arguing with that point as much as reiterating that right now there are only two options.
Also, regarding your suggestion that this is something that should be discussed in the primaries, the article does addresses that:
If a politician conceals the extent of their anti trans rhetoric until the general, there’s not much that could have been done. Additionally, even if they hadn’t, if trans people and their allies supported another dem and they lost the primary, all the sudden they are expected to be willing to accept an anti trans candidate. I can understand them being unwilling to support them and possibly next time it will be the other faction that ends up having to be willing to sacrifice their ideals in the primary they want a dem candidate to win the general.
I am not sure how strategic that is, but mainly because Dems don’t generally withhold their votes so there’s not much precedent to see how the party will react.