That would be a morally correct political faux pas, that would result in Republicans scoring easy points just by saying "See! We told you so!"

It's the kind of suggestion someone in a leftwing political bubble would make, forgetting that to actually be effective, you have to win votes from both sides.

There's no room for tactical errors this election, even if they would make you feel morally superior. It's not a game of moral signaling, it's a game of politics. The point is not to be right, it's to win the election.

ITT: we do the white moderate thing MLK talked about where we set a timetable for someone's rights. I'm sure one day it'll be politically convenient to support trans people, y'all just hang in there.

The mainstream talking point of Democrats turned to "we need to play it safe and win all the Republican votes".

They believe only centrist moderate voters can be scared away. And claim progressives are always guaranteed to vote Democrat. Everything hangs on that assumption.

The problem is so much bigger than who said what at what convention. The Democratic party needs to actually do something other than pay lip service to the trans population. Unfortunately trans people are less than 1% of voters. Even if all of their friends and family were allies, that's still not enough votes to matter.

The average cis democrat would be perfectly happy with Not-Trump. No one wants trans people to die (at least hopefully), but if it was supporting trans rights or beating Trump? His evangelical base is getting tired of his shit. But if the scary brown lady started talking about transgenders that might be enough to bring them back into the fold.

Meanwhile in most red states the trans population will be ground into a fine paste regardless of who lives in the white house. Unless dems and pull a hat trick and take the presidency, house, and senate (next to impossible this year) that won't change.

It kills me to write, but not talking about trans rights makes sense. That is not a problem within the power of POTUS to solve. A federal law or constitutional amendment is going to be the only way to protect trans rights, abortion access, and gay or interracial marriage. Plus, more cynically, she's got the trans vote regardless, so best case she just says some words. Worst case she loses the paper thin margin because the jesus freaks who were going to stay home have a reason to vote.

"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.

The trans community and it's supporters know they're being attacked by the right and needs to vote Dem, so they've got that locked in. What political advantage is there in making it a campaign issue for the Dems when the GOP has done all the work already?

Na. They did the right thing. It’s implied. Why give the trump idiots more ammo.

Love how all the pro-trans rights people are being downvoted in this thread. You ok, Lemmy?

Oh my god. This account finds something to nitpick at the Dems and posts every five minutes. Notice how they barely - if ever - post anything critical of Republicans?

Every. Five. Minutes.

You want a seat ta the table? Learn how politics works. Otherwise, I don't know, go back to purity testing the Dems every five minutes. See where that gets you.

Mhm. Let's make the moral choice, have Republicans make more noise on the issue and turn away voters just like on Gaza, climate change, immigration, wealth inequality to ultimately help Republicans strip away protections on each.

To have Harris be the slippery target is strategic, because Republicans know how to pounce on an issue when they think they see one. They've already done it dozens of times on complete non-issues due to them having lack of real rebuttals against the Democratic party.

I'll put it bluntly: to have trans-inclusivity become the norm, we have to pitch the inclusivity part before we explain the trans part.