Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.
Choosing between the party where every elected official wants to unalive you, vs the party where only a handful want to do the same…
Yeah, that is a tough one. Really difficult decision, there.
In the places where the blue candidate is a transphobe, it’s transphobe vs transphobe
Yes, but if Dems remain in the minority, it’ll still be a Republican majority, giving them more time to dismantle democracy even further.
It’s the bigger picture which is most important. You cannot create lasting local change without removing the autocratic boot from above.
I mean, yes, let’s make these transphobe Dems as uncomfortable as possible. But America needs to roll back the fascism and authoritarianism, first. Without that first step, every other positive action is a house built on sand - it can be blown away from the top with infinite ease. And then it’s 1939 Germany all over again with pink triangles and pogroms aplenty.
And honestly, I see that outcome as the much, much worse one.
And if the transphobic Dems vote with the Republicans, trans people lose anyway. Democrats don’t do party discipline, so the anti-trans laws get passed anyway under the guise of “concessions”, so heads you’re dead, tails you’re still dead but someone somewhere feels bad about it.
The real problem is that no transphobic dem is capable of saving democracy.
Transphobic democrats are, at their very core, spineless cowards. They hold no real beliefs. There is no core to them. They simply follow the polls and hope to obtain power. They seek power for its own sake, not for what good they hope to do with it.
What the “blue no matter who” crowd forget is that saving democracy is unpopular. To truly save democracy, we’re going to have to pass unpopular laws. We’re going to have to rein in the power of the presidency. We’re going to have to dismantle the post-9/11 security state. We’re going to have to abolish ICE. But each of those things will result in headlines that Republicans will make great political hay out of. Abolish ICE? Some illegal immigrant is going to kill a white girl, and Republicans will be talking about it for years. Dismantling the surveillance state will actually mean we get hit with a few more terrorist attacks than we otherwise would.
Transphobe democracts are not going to save democracy. Saving democracy requires politicians who will look voters in the eye and say, “this is going to kill some Americans. I’m willing to let some Americans die if it means we save American democracy. Democracy is worth dying for.” Can you imagine any of these spineless TERF democrats having that kind of moral conviction?
Democrats who vote against trans rights will also vote against any bill that’s meant to seriously reinforce democracy. You can’t save democracy by voting in transphobes. They lack the moral courage to save it.
Many people will fail to make it, unfortunately. Many of them in this comment section.
The problem is voting strategically does feel good. People would rather have a clear conscience and evil government than an OK government and the feeling of having voted for a schmuck because the other schmuck was also a fascist.
I’ll get downvoted to hell for it, but you failed to include a valid third choice: not voting for either if they don’t represent your values.
Behold, the results of the “valid 3rd choice.”
Ah yes.
Choosing nothing over the least bad option when the final decision effects everyone.
What a hero.
choosing not to vote for the dnc is a valid long play, at the cost of risking republican victory in the short term, the length of the time is decided by the democrats.
vote for people who potray your values. people who claim that not voting for someone because they are only 2% off from acceptable vastly misrepresents the sheer % i disagree with the democratic platform based on their actions, and not their lies they tell near voting time
Sure, that’s an option. But all you’re doing is leaving the choice up to everyone else. No amount of abstention is going to shift this system into having more than 2 meaningful political parties.
If you really wanna say that neither candidate will produce a result you would prefer over the other, even if both are distasteful to you - then great, don’t vote. When my only two useful options are between a warm hell and a hot hell, I will be casting my vote for the warm hell - and then using my time before the next election to try to get people to push for a less shitty Dem next time.