Democrats learned the wrong lesson from one of Trump's most powerful campaign strategies
This June marks the 50th anniversary of Pride, and with WorldPride descending on D.C., the nation's capital will become the epicenter of the monumental occasion. But the celebrations will take place amid a climate of fear. In just the first few months since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump has attacked nearly every marginalized group that didn't vote for him, with trans Americans among his favorite targets.
Too many Democrats played right into his hands by refusing to engage in the fight at all. Democrats have won this fight before, and they can win it again — but only through confrontation, not cowardice.
The most devastating ad of the 2024 cycle featured a clip of Kamala Harris supporting gender-affirming surgery for incarcerated illegal immigrants. The commercial ended with the line, 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.' It was cheap, cruel and wildly misleading — but brutally effective. According to Future Forward, Harris' own billion-dollar Super PAC, the ad swung voters by 2.7 percentage points. Democrats like Bill Clinton warned that Harris' campaign needed to respond, but after a possible response tested poorly, the campaign chose silence.
Even months after the election, Democratic leaders still haven't figured out why that ad worked. Their takeaway? Curse more. Make more TikToks. Find the left's version of Joe Rogan. But that's not what people want. They want to know someone is in the ring, fighting for them. They want courage.
The trans issue in American politics is a paradox. On the one hand, it dominates headlines. Search the internet for 'NCAA trans athletes' any day of the week, or spend five minutes watching Fox News, and you'll believe that trans athletes are taking over the NCAA. Earlier this year, 13 senators signed a resolution demanding that the NCAA ban trans athletes. But guess how many trans athletes were actually competing in NCAA sports? Fewer than 10. Out of 510,000.
So why the outrage? Simple: fear. Americans are overwhelmed by change. They're anxious, and Trump knows this. He has always promised to protect people from various boogeymen: immigrants, the left, and now, trans people.
But the MAGA outrage machine isn't just yelling into a podcast mic; it's leading to real harm. Trans Americans are nearly five times more likely to be victims of violent crime. And while they face this escalating threat, Trump allies like Reps. Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace are storming a Capitol Hill bathroom to confront a woman they think is trans.
The trans community needs fighters in Washington. But so far, Democrats have decided to 'don't ask, don't tell' in this fight, or outright throw the trans community under the bus for the sake of 'electability.' What makes this decision even more frustrating is that trans rights aren't even unpopular. According to a March Pew poll, 56% of Americans support protecting trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces. That's nearly 15 points higher than Trump's current favorability.
The public isn't the problem. The silence from the top is. In the attention economy, silence is surrender. Trump and his allies are loud, relentless and shameless. Unless Democrats are willing to be just as loud, but with truth and moral clarity, they will keep losing.
This Pride month, Democrats can't remain silent like Harris did. They have to swing back. When Republicans start ramping up their attacks on Trans people, Democrats need to start showing up on the front lines, loudly calling out the GOP's twisted obsession for exactly what it is: creepy, invasive and deeply dangerous.
Republicans' creepy obsession with monitoring our restrooms isn't about safety. It's not about fairness. It's about attention, power and fearmongering. People are looking for someone who will defend their version of the American dream, and no one's dream includes genital checks at the bathroom door.
Democrats have won this fight before. Nearly 10 years ago, North Carolina Republicans enacted the first bill restricting transgender Americans from using the bathroom matching their gender identities. But the nation mobilized to stop these bigoted bathroom checks with widespread boycotts and financial pressure even from the NCAA. A year later, the bill was repealed, though Republicans still haven't given up.
In Omaha, Nebraska, less than a month ago, Democrat John Ewing defeated three-term Mayor Jean Stothert. The incumbent, a Republican, ran a vicious anti-trans campaign. Ewing didn't stay silent, but faced the issue head-on with a blunt slogan, 'Jean is focused on potties. John is focused on fixing potholes.'
And my organization, Progress Action Fund, is following in their footsteps. Next week, we'll be releasing a sequel to our viral 'Your Republican Congressman' ads, literally showing how the GOP is more concerned with checking people's genitals than focusing on the real priorities of the American people. In our testing, this message moves the needle against Republicans more than 3 percentage points.
Democrats must stop managing fear and start confronting it. Not just to defend a community under siege, but to remind every American watching that Democrats are still capable of courage. That this party remembers how to throw a punch. That, like trans rights supporters have done for decades, they are ready to resist loudly, unapologetically, and without permission.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Granderson: Voters who don't vote? This is one way democracy can die, by 20 million cuts
During China's imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means 'death by a thousand cuts.' Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy's demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there's blood on the hands of the people. On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama's first term. Or at least some voters will be. In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower. Lackluster participation in an 'off year' election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats' resistance and the public's appetite for the White House's policies. Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio's progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor's mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold. The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city's registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn't submit a ballot. It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump's unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of 'voter integrity' policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It's a muscle in need of exercise. 'Some people find voting to be a chore,' Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. 'We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don't feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what's at stake locally.' Carew said that the added outside interest in the city's election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing. 'One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it's gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what's best for the city and not their party.' In 2024, a presidential election year when you'd expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, 'Nah, I'm good.' Or something like that. The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it's not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California. And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling. Sure, it's good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result's meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low. One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it's hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that's all the exercise it's getting. @LZGranderson If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. MORE: Speaker Johnson tries to protect fate of megabill from Trump-Musk crossfire Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. MORE: Trump-Musk feud leaves some DOGE staffers worried about their futures: Sources He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. MORE: Trump tells ABC Musk 'lost his mind,' as CEO's dad says 'make sure this fizzles out' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same. Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS originally appeared on
