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’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’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.