Comment on Elections Have Consequences
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day agoI listen to some podcasts that talk a lot about polling data, and analyze not only how people vote, but why. It’s not political, and just about analysis.
It’s my understanding that there was a backlash to democrats going all in on woke issues. This drove republicans to the polls when they might have been more likely to stay home.
It’s fine to be woke, but let’s just stfu about it. Last thing we need is to encourage republican backlash.
This same thing applied to guns. Democrats talked too much about gun control, which drove Republicans to the polls at massive levels. Now they don’t talk about it, and that’s one less motivation for Republicans.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I asked for a specific policy, not vague allusions to “going all in on woke issues.”
If you’re focusing on rhetoric rather than policy, then fine, provide me some actual, specific examples of that rhetoric.
Relying on vague perceptions and imperfect memories is just bullshit. How I remember it is very different from what you’re saying.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We’re just 2 people sharing our imperfect memories on the internet.
Do you disagree that “woke” issues were a motivating factor for many republic in the past?
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
That’s completely shifting the goalposts. Whether Republicans viewed the Democrats as being woke is an entirely different question from whether the Democrats actually were woke. Republicans believed Democrats for reasons I already explained, in my first reply and elsewhere in this thread.
The reality is that the Republican perception of the Democrats had more to do with their own minds and their own circles and their own conditions, rather than what Democrats actually said or did. Many of these people are just diehard reactionaries and unreachable.
Also, Democrats won midterm races regardless of what their stance on trans rights was. El-Sayed for example did not (to my knowledge) adopt any anti-trans positions, and politicians like Talarico and Hamilton (Kansas) conceded on sports but overall had positive messaging.
This is exactly why it’s important to ground your narratives in hard facts rather than vague memories, because if you compare politicians’ rhetoric then to now, how much has it actually shifted? It’s more that Republicans overplayed their hand on the issue, while also fucking up in other, bigger ways, like in Iran. So the rhetoric that’s remembered as being “too extreme” and the rhetoric that’s seen as “reasonable” could be the exact same words, and what’s actually changed is people’s perception of that rhetoric. Which is meaningless for the conclusions and narratives you’re drawing.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I definitely don’t have time to go through a decade of social media posts and news articles, so the best your going to get from me right now is my memory.
Fact that candidates like Talarico and Hamilton were able to say they didn’t support trans people on the issue of sports without the wrath of the left ending their career is evidence the Democrats are no longer “all in” on woke. Newsom said exactly as much 2 yeas ago and was branded a transphobic bigot immediately. Even though he also said very supportive things of the Trans community in the exact same podcast and has done supportive things. To me, this reaction from the community was a problem. It didn’t help that he sucks in other ways, so nobody really wanted to defend him.
Perception was based on comments by many people on the left supporting this idea. Both politicians and the community. No actual legislation came from this, but the stigma was left behind as a result.