Special Issue: Democrats can pivot without betraying vulnerable people
Someone tell Moulton and Suozzi to sit down
Well, that election sucked.
Despite being objectively the worst human being to ever hold the Presidency, Donald Trump won a non-consecutive term to office last week. This makes him only the second President to win non-consecutive terms. The first was Grover Cleveland, who won in 1884, lost in 1888, and won again in 1892. Of course. Cleveland is different from Trump in one big way. In all three Cleveland elections, including his 1888 electoral college loss, he won the popular vote. Trump lost the popular vote in his first win, in his re-election loss, but this time he actually secured a popular vote victory.
We don’t have the final margins yet, as the western states count for days after the voting. Right now the margin stands at 3.4 million and a 2% margin. Vast majorities of the country swung further to right in this election in the places where counting is finished.
Now, the exact final margin, final swings, and WHAT sparked swings in different parts of the country needs to be thoroughly analyzed. However, it is clear the issue is not just with one part of the country or demographic. This is a much bigger problem.
Lets Breath and Slow Down on “The Takes”
So what happened? How could Harris lose?! How is this possible?! There is so much shock and frustration, as well as legitimate fear, in Democratic circles that there has been no shortage of answers to what happened. Yes, there is a component of racism. Yes, there is a component of sexism. Yes, there is issues with the media glossing over Trump being a deranged lunatic. However, this massive swing is really only viable amid a massive economic backlash.
Since the election, we have seen plenty of Democratic and left-wing sniping back and forth about messaging, strategy, and policies. Broadly I agree that as Democrats, and I include myself here, we did not take economic concerns seriously enough in our messaging. I personally was fixated at Trump’s immorality and the real danger he poses to Democracy. However, every history book I’ve ever read told me that if voters are not happy with their pocketbook situation, they throw morality and institutional concerns to the side. In that respect, polling showing voters were unhappy with the economy meant OF COURSE this would happen.
This means that discussions around Democrats and social issues need to be slowed down. Already we have members of Congress and Democratic operatives calling for the party to effectively abandon different communities; with LGBT people getting the brunt of the attack. This has all stemmed from what I see as misreading of exit polls and also some people being eager to throw groups they already didn’t like under the bus. So I wanted to write this to lay out some key data points I have regarding this election. I will talk about what I think led to the results; and the massive effect post-COVID economics is having on governments around the world.
Then I will discuss why throwing any community to the wolves, but I will be focused on LGBT voters here, is not the politically smart or morally acceptable thing to do.
Its the Economy, Stupid
If you know anything about the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign, even if its just from reading about it in American Government classes, the phrase “its the economy, stupid” is etched into your mind. The phrase, coined by strategist James Carville, laid out the campaign’s plan of attack on President George H.W. Bush’s administration. The country was in a recession at the time, and as such President Bush was primed for defeat.
Heading into the 2024 election, American was primed for rejecting the incumbent administration. Polling heading into the election all said a vast majority of Americans were unhappy with the state of things in the country; often topping 70%. Economic issues, namely inflation, has rocked industrialized countries across the planet. I’ll delve into that more in a moment, but it cannot be overstressed how “inflation” and “cost of living” would come up in my readings about elections across the world. You would see the same uniting issue in Eastern Africa or Northern Canada.
Now, by every metric, the United States got its inflation much better under control compared to other G7 nations. However, that fact does not mean much for people who have found their cost of living went up and didn’t go back down; or didn’t go back down to pre-pandemic levels. Coupled with wages stagnating, and it was no real surprise that President Biden was unpopular heading into the election. When an incumbent leader is unpopular, it almost always leads to bad things for the party in power. While myself and many others hoped, prayed, believed, that Trump’s unique monstrousness would stop people from voting for him, in retrospect I am not surprised (while sad) about how voting went. If anything, I firmly believe any other Republican would have done even better - likely looking at a 1980-style wipeout.
I reference 1980 because despite being an eventual landslide - the polling on it was close until near the end. Ronald Reagan at the time was viewed as “too conservative” for most voters - but broad unhappiness with the economy led to a final break in Regan’s favor. Reagan at the debate a week before voting gave the famous line - “are you better off now than you were four years ago.” The voters said no - regardless if it was Jimmy Carter’s fault or not.
The CNN Exit polls, which you can view in full here, reveal plenty of important information to show how much economic issues drove this result. Exit polls are never perfect, and especially on racial breakdowns its important to supplement that with precinct results. However, the broad trends are clear and can be analyzed. These specific polls show a very clear point - voters were not happy with Biden, had suffered under inflation, and trusted Trump more on the economy.
My belief that a generic Republican could have done better really stands out in the fact that 16% of people who disapproved of Biden still voted for Harris. Most critical here, however, is that 70%+ of voters had found inflation and cost of living to be a problem - and they bucked the party in power.
Even among Trump voters, 14% are concerned about his temperament and respect for the rule of law. The survey data shows voters have concerns about Trump, but were willing to break for him because they simply were unhappy with the current state of things. In fact, more voters found Trump to be “too extreme” than they did with Kamala Harris. This is actually really important for when we delve into the debate around non-economic messaging. In the exits, 54% of voters viewed Trump views as “too extreme” - while it was 47% for Kamala Harris. The problem for Harris was Trump still managed to get 12% of those who said he was too extreme - showing voters again were putting their personal misgivings about candidates aside.
The Worldwide Anti-Incumbent Wave
The 2024 Presidential Election was not held in a vacuum. In fact, it has come amid the worst year for incumbent governments in modern Democratic history. This excellent piece from the Financial Times lays out all the facts around elections here and across the world amid an economy that is struggling in a post-COVID dynamic. The 2024 elections mark the first time no incumbent government in any democracy improved their vote share.
Whether this economic situation can be blamed on US Democrats, or UK Tories, or French Renaissance, it does not matter to voters.
Voters don’t like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when inflation hit. The cost of living was also the top issue in Britain’s July general election and has been front of mind in dozens of other countries for most of the last two years.
I’ll say too, this notion backs up all the election results I have been following the last few years.
As many of my longtime followers know, I am often following international elections. I rarely get to give them as much attention as I’d like - but even when I’m not dedicating an article to them, I’m tracking the results. The broad anti-incumbent worldwide swing is absolutely something that has stood out. These were the times I covered an election that showed an anti-incumbent swing in the last 15 or so months.
In October of 2023, the Manitoba, Canada Conservatives lost control to the New Democrats in an election where responses to COVID and healthcare were dominant concerns. I wrote about that here.
In November of 2023, the African nation of Liberia had its first peaceful defeat of an incumbent President when George Weah lost to challenger Joseph Boakai. The election was dominated by economic concerns and stagnating and crushing poverty. Never before had Liberia seen a President ousted at the ballot box and then gracefully concede. You can read my detailed breakdown here.
In May of 2023, I wrote about the trouble the ruling ANC was having in South Africa. Amid a struggling economy and massive wealth gap, the party of Nelson Mandela appeared poised to finally deprive the ANC of a majority. That would come to pass, and I actually have an article on those results I need to finish. The ANC lost its majority and was forced into a coalition to keep governing.
In July of 2024, the UK Tories got wiped out in the parliament elections. Again the economy was a major driver in this election. Much of my article on the topic dealt with the Labour Party’s trouble with Muslim voters.
In late July of 2024, Venezuela voters clearly voted to oust the incumbent Maduro regime. While rigged results have been published and the dictator-in-all-but-name won’t leave, the election sheets from polling places showed the challenger won over 65% of the vote. While democracy was a concern among voters, Maduro’s biggest issue was economic and crime issues. I wrote all about the complexities of elections amid authoritarianism here.
Theses are hardly the only major elections - more that I never even got to cover saw similar results Reporter Rob Ford has a detailed twitter thread on all the elections of the last two years; showing just how bad things went. Key elections that stand out for me are
In October of 2023, Argentina elected Javier Milei, an anti-establishment libertarian with clear authoritarian tendencies, as President. Voter angry over high inflation saw long-established parties collapse in support.
In November of 2023, elections for the Northwest Territories in Canada - a region that is 90% ice and had just dealt with massive forest fires - the major election issue was same as everywhere else - cost of living and inflation. These elections are non-partisan.
The April-June 2024 elections in India saw Modi’s ruling party lose a massive number of seats - far more than anyone expected. This came despite Modi’s party working to form a firm populist control as a Hindu-nationalist and anti-Muslim Party.
In May of 2024, the ruling Social Democrats of Macedonia lost more than half their seats amid a struggling economy and immigration concerns.
In the June and July Parliament elections in France, the centrist ruling Macron party bled support to the far-right or left-wing coalition parties; leaving them in distant third behind the right-wing and left-wing party coalitions.
In October, Japan's longtime ruling Liberal Democratic Party suffered its second worse defeat in modern history.
In October, Botswana saw its longtime-ruling party lose virtually all its seats as voters showed anger at the current economic situation in the country.
Even in our own backyard, we saw the effects of economic concerns in how it effect government’s regardless of party. We saw this in two Canadian Provinces: British Columbia and New Brunswick. In BC, the left-of-center New Democrats saw the majority fall big, only allowing them to retain control by one seat. Then in New Brunswick, the ruling Conservatives got swept out by the left-wing Liberal Party as economic and healthcare issues dominated the campaign.
As the FT article ends, it lays out what I think is clear….
Biden, Harris and the Democrats are not blameless for Tuesday’s decisive defeat. Clearly there are lessons to be learnt. But it’s possible there is just no set of policies or personas that can overcome the current global anti-incumbent wave.
The US election result fits in with a worldwide pattern. Incumbent administrations lost big. The modest closeness of the result, and the fact Republicans failed to gain several Senate races or crush in the house races, is very telling. This was not a 1980 Reagan Revolution, or a 1932 FDR New Deal. Trump managed a modest win and Republicans have eked out control of both chambers. This is not a dominant win by any stretch. NO that does not mean Democrats should go “oh we are fine” and just blow ahead.
The fact is, American may have been able to avoid this result with different messaging. However, I am hardly sure of that - nor am I a communications expert. The question of “could Democrats have won” and “what could have been done different” will be debated and research for months. It should be. The Democratic Party needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror and think - “how did we lose to THAT man.” Tough questions do need to be asked.
But that hard look needs to be done without viewing any group, whether its immigrants, or women, or LGBT people, as something ‘disposable’ to the Democratic coalition. The hard look needs to be about rhetoric and style, not abandoning groups. With that thought, let me get personal to help people understand.
The “Othering” of LGBT People - My Story
You know, I never desired to get into politics. I was born in 1986 (yes I’m that old) and spent much of my youth focused on art. I was good at math and I loved to draw and paint. Starting High School I was interested in architecture and I was taking drafting classes. When the 2000 election recounts took place, I was 14 and barely engaged. It meant nothing to me. My middle/working class family were broadly Democrats, my mother an outspoken lefty. But for me, I was 14 and didn’t care.
Then the 9/11 attacks happened - and suddenly it really mattered what was going on in the world. Not that 9/11 or the Afghanistan invasion instantly sparked getting involved in elections or politics. I didn’t follow the 2002 midterms, I just knew we were fighting terrorism. Luckily I was raised in a household and liberal Lutheran Church that kept me far from any anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiment. If anything, my politics of this time was “fuck anyone being a racist toward people just trying to live their lives.” Growing up in South Florida, in a community with a large Jewish population, the concerns around “othering” a community and the horror it can lead to was firmly entrenched at a young age. In Middle and High School we’d meet with Holocaust survivors, we would read all the histories and first hand accounts, we would be made to understand “this can happen again if you are not watchful.” At first I internalized this greatly as hate crimes against anyone with brown skin spiked post-9/11.
Then came my own struggles with my sexuality. This whole time is blurry to me, but coming to my own realization that I was LGBT occurred sometime after 9/11; even though crushes I had in middle school were for both sexes. Today I’d call myself pansexual or bisexual. Of course in the early 2000s the phrase for this was fence-sitter. Plenty of gay and lesbian individuals would not acknowledge bisexuality, insisting I or anyone was trying to avoid taking the plunge into the discrimination that comes with being gay. With the hindsight of history, these positions aged horribly and have been renounced by those who once held them.
For me, what finally sparked an interest and focus on politics was the 2004 election; which would be the first election I could vote in. The Iraq War was certainty not a positive for me, but the weaponization of LGBT issues really sparked my fury at Bush. As I still struggled with the isolation of feeling a society around me was hostile, I now had the President pushing to override Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage with a Constitutional Amendment. I had conservative leaders like Rick Santorum comparing same-sex marriage to marrying a child or marrying a dog. I want you to imagine the mental toll this takes on a young person. I will spare you the details - but I am often amazed I am alive right now. If it was not for the support of my parents and one core best friend - I don’t know if I make it to college.
I’ll spare you a full history of my adult political life. The short story is the events of 2003 to 2004 really sparked a shift to politics for me. Specifically I got into politics to “reduce harm” - to fight against bigotry and state-backed discrimination. My politics also firmly went into left-wing economics as Bush’s pro-rich tax policies clashed with my firm religious anti-greed positions. Bottom line, I go into college at FSU as a steadfast LGBT leftist and despite being pulled into an academic or PhD mindset, I opted into campaigns themselves. My strength in math and art eventually perfectly collided into data-driven election analysis - and of course making “pretty maps.”
The Never-ending Attacks on LGBT People
Through all this time, what has now been TWENTY YEARS of voting in elections, I have covered LGBT issues plenty. I have seen issues like Same-Sex Marriage fade as a culture war fight. This has then been answered with a focus on transgender issues - which seemed to really ramp up as a Republican talking point once SSM was no longer a viable issue to win elections on. Funny how that works out.
Now in the last few years, the right-wing has gone full “mask off” and embraced just broad anti-LGBT sentiment. Bans on even mentioning the existence of LGBT people in school became a major focal point in Florida and have expanded elsewhere. These laws are copies of laws that autocracies like Russia and Hungary passed years ago. During the Spring of 2023 fights of LGBT rights in Florida, I wrote about the topic twice. Both these articles delve deep into me answers some false accusations about LGBT or transgender issues.
If you are legit someone reading this who is “boy I don’t know about this stuff” - then I recommend reading these two pieces. This has expanded well beyond restrictive laws and also into demonizing LGBT people - especially around calling them “groomers” and insisting they are out to harm your children.
That LGBT people are a menace to kids is not a new attack - as it dates back to 1970s laws that tried to ban gay people from teaching. I just got done reading the “Morally Straight” book - which documents the fight for gays in scouts. BTW I got my Eagle Scout while in the closet to my troop.
The Trump campaign, especially in the closing months of this year, went all-in on anti-transgender rhetoric. Reporter Marc Caputo has a full accounting of the ads and tactics here. This was the natural expansion of right-wing talking point that had been building for years. One ad, which I will not link, that has been extensively discussed is the “Kamala is for they/them” ad - which basically framed Harris as only carrying about LGBT people and not for “average Americans.” It is being insisted this ad carried a great deal of weight in aiding Trump win. I have my doubts, and we will get to that in a moment.
Campaign tactic debate aside, the result of all of his political weaponization of LGBT issues has been an increase in anti-LGBT hate crimes; which now make up 22% of attacks. Bullying, both in person and online, is way up over the last several years. With this, suicidal thoughts and attempts are sky high with LGBT youth. Recent studies show 39% of LGBT youth considered suicide in the past year, with that at nearly 50% among transgender people. This is not due to anything but social pressure compounded with the struggles of youth - as the Trevor Project lays out.
“LGBTQ+ youth are not inherently prone to suicide risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity but rather placed at higher risk because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized in society.”
Regardless of one’s opinion on the political effectiveness of anti-LGBT campaigns; this is essentially a political tactic that is exasperating hate crimes and contributes to the suicide rate It is a political communication tactics that runs on hate and “othering” a community. You will forgive my 1920s and 1930s Germany comparisons here - but it sure as hell looks similar.
You can use whatever historic comparison you want, but at the end of the day, the tactics is no less evil. Its the modern example of George Wallace running against integration in the 1960s. It will only go down as a shameful moment in American history.
Throwing People Under the Bus
So you all can imagine that after the election results, LGBT people across America, including myself, feel very nervous and vulnerable. No group feels more vulnerable than transgender Americans. So imagine if just in the days after the election, at the height of vulnerability, you get two Democratic Congressmen who just cannot wait to shit on the left, but especially transgender people. Two full quotes are below…
“I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports. Democrats aren’t saying that, and they should be.” Congressman Tom Suozzi
Then….
“I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” Congressman Seth Moulton
So here is my thing. This has nothing to do with whether or not a transgender individual should compete in a sporting event. Polling wise, even as most Americans support legal protections for transgender people, they also adopt a “no to sports” view. However, is anyone voting based on that alone? Seems very debatable. I’ll circle back to that.
First, I want to point out the biggest reason many, including myself, where “FUCK THESE GUYS” when the quotes came out. First, great job with the use of right-wing rhetoric about “boys plays with girls.” These are not statements that say “look we need to have a conversation about protecting the rights of people while also ensuring sport leagues, especially competitive ones, move forward in the best way for everyone.” While I would certainly not feel the day after the election is the time for this, I also would respond to it a lot less vitriolic.
The actual biology of people in transition, namely when on hormone therapy, leaves it debatable if they really have an advantage. I am not hear to figure SPORTS out - as I’m easily the least qualified. However, I can easily come up with language that doesn’t reduce the transition of people to “you are just a boy in a dress” - which is the clear tone of those statements. I am rarely the biggest tone-police person on the planet, and I often clash with my fellow leftists over this issue.
However, both Congressmen are simply using rhetoric that any right-winger who also wants to ban transition for adults would use. Moulton said his words came from “just being a dad” who cares about his girls’ sports teams. I don’t doubt his conviction. However, it also never occurred to him how a parent of a transgender child may feel about just waiting their kid to be able to play in a local soccer league. Moulton never considers other parents’ experiences or thoughts.
The truth is the debate about sports specifically is poisoned by right-wing politics. Its never legislation to say “lets establish some athletics commissions that can dig into the effects of transition and seeing where there is an unfair advantage.” That position would actually be fairly popular with LGBT voters. But no, every police debate is framed around the idea that transgender people are invading women’s sports. Ironically it never talks about transgender boys (aka assigned female at birth). Again, I am not here to say maybe some sports restrictions would be needed. But the debate has never been good faith. It has always been “LOOK AT THE SCARY BOYS THAT WANT TO BEAT UP YOUR LITTLE DANTY GIRLS.” Moulton feeds into that sentiment. And he does this at the expensive of transgender people, most of whom don’t give a shit about playing in a sports league.
Moulton, who has faced a great deal of protest for his comments, has insisted he cares about LGBT rights and that its the “left doing purity testing.” But then he gives statements like this… again right out of a right-wing playbook.
“I mean, here we are accusing Republicans of being weird and we’re the ones who are suddenly requiring people to put pronouns in their email signatures. I mean, that’s kind of weird, to be honest.”
Yeah that’s right congressman, putting your pronouns in an email is definitely weirder than Republicans passing laws that would result in the inspecting the genitals of underaged athletes. How about when a Utah Board of Education member tried to prove a High School female athlete was actually transgender; which she wasn’t’, leading to threats against said student? I could write out 500 examples in the last few years of Republican and conservatives being outright rabbidly obsessed with this issue. But no Congressman, its some pronouns being used in emails that is too far.
Moulton complains about being protested in his district. In fact he’s lost staff over this. He insists he is a victim… but I think this line sums it up well why he isn’t.
“How are you supposed to take that when a congressman from your state, someone who’s elected to represent you, is throwing you under the bus for losing the election?” Protest organizer Coyote Sanchez
Moulton may really think this cost us the election. I don’t buy it at all. However, even if he did, it was his rush to just go after the transgender community that is the definition of “feeding to the wolves.” It is not what a real leader does. Its not what Democrats did after 2004. I shudder to imagine Moulton in 2004 going “we need to sign on to ban same-sex marriage!”
Me and Seth Moulton do agree that winning elections is important. The best protection for LGBT people is for the right-wing to not be in power. However, Moulton is outright blaming LGBT people for the loss. He does this is a cruel and mean-spirited way. Frankly he just comes off as a massive dick.
But hey you can be a dick and also be right. So lets see… is Seth Moulton right?
The Impact of LGBT Issues on the Election
Now, as I started this article covering economics, I firmly believe that pocketbook issues was the overwhelmingly driver of this election. But for the sake of a full breakdown, lets dive at the evidence for LGBT issues being a problem for Democrats in this election.
Shortly after the election, Blueprint Surveys released a detailed survey of voters across different demographics and and voting propensity. The table below shows reasons voters gave NOT TO BACK HARRIS. So the Green positive tables show the reason was an increased reason not to back her, while red indicating little/no factor for a voter in not picking her. A more detailed table is in the above link.
Inflation, immigration, and culture-war issues were the top three for voters. The culture-war issue, which specifically mentioned transgender rights, is ranked 3rd in importance for voters - but lets look clearly at this wording.
“Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class”
This result does match with the internal word from the Trump team that framing Harris as more concerned on cultural issues than economics had a notable impact in their data. However, that anecdote, and this polling question, need to be understood for what they say. They are NOT saying “finding out Harris supports LGBT people means she lost support.” Rather, the Trump campaign, and perhaps successfully, aimed to frame Harris as only concerned about cultural issues - whether abortion or LGBT rights - and NOT economic issues. The polling data we see does not say “Harris lost because of LGBT rights” - its saying she lost because “voters perceived her has only caring about those issues.” This would circle back to the “its the economy, stupid” argument. Basically this tactic would not have worked as well under better economic conditions.
What I will say did NOT help Harris was the campaign’s lack of a clear message on transgender issues. The campaign largely let the Trump team define her as “out of touch.” The campaign would have been better served staking out a position that amounted to “we are here to protect every American, and we will not demonize any group like you do.” The reality is, the Harris campaign did not run on protection LGBT rights as a front-and-center strategy. However, they also didn’t stop themselves from being defined by a caricature version of their positions.
Several other Democratic Congresspeople, from Pat Ryan to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, have talked about how the worked in their districts to bring economic results and show they were working toward better economic outcomes for their constituents. That, plus the full results of exit data and voter interviews, showed that voters responded most to seeing the official cared about their concerns. Both are firm pro-LGBT members, with Perez, despite being in a Trump seat, voting against a blanket ban on transgender athletes.
Coming out of this election thinking Trump won it because Democrats are too “pro-trans” is falling for the same mistake as thinking George W. Bush won 2004 because of gay marriage. After Bush one, conservatives celebrated the win for traditional values as some liberals scoffed as the bigoted nation they lived in. However, data even that day showed that voters did not consider the issue as a key driver. They were concerned about national security, and viewed Bush as more likely to keep them safe. This has been revisited and confirmed since that election. Lets not make the same mistake as 2004.
Looking Forward
This surely will not be the last time I discuss this issue. I plan to cover more on this issue around LGBT rights and the 2024 election. To my eye, election data across the country this year and previous years shows that just being anti-trans is not a winning issue. I have school board results, referendum results, and congressional results that all show rabid anti-LGBT people don’t get a magic boost in support - and in some instances kill their chances.
There are two campaigns I will for sure be covering in their own articles. One will look at the election in Delaware - where Susan McBride became America’s first transgender Congressperson. The other is in New York, where an Equal Rights amendment that was attacked by the right for protecting LGBT residents outperformed Harris across the state. I am also working on digging into the Florida results to get a sense of what happened here - especially with Hispanic voters.
Far more is to come. I leave on this final note. According to the the exit polls, LGBT people made up 8% of voters. If you’re even remotely familiar with response issues on this question, you know that LGBT identity is often under-counted. Regardless, among these voters, they broke 86% for Harris, and just 13% for Trump. This is a steadfast Democratic voting block that it probably isn’t a good idea to alienate.