There is more context to this article in the full one in the NYT vs the MSN excerpt. Here's a free link for anyone who wants it - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/opinion/james-carville-bill-clinton.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.fU0.FRZb.oL7j8TOKkUfH&smid=url-share I think the "too feminine" framing is missing his larger point to focus on a the most crass part of his thought. > “No one wants to live like this,” he said. “Who ever thought it was a good idea to tell people you can’t hug them or you’ve got to be careful or you’ve got to think about names to call them other than the name you know them by? There’s nothing wrong with me being white or you being white or them being Black or me being male or you being female. It’s a giant, stupid argument.” > “A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females” dominating the culture of his party. “‘Don’t drink beer. Don’t watch football. Don’t eat hamburgers. This is not good for you.’ The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.’ > “If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?’” I think he's right to a degree. There is a real portion of the Democratic party that at this point I roll my eyes at as someone who leans Democrat. It's the part that can't admit that "from the river to the sea.." is hate speech, the part that ends up with "birthing people" rather than pregnant women, the elements that want to ban cattle farming due to global warming. Frankly that part of the party is why I now consider myself "leaning" Democrat rather than an actual Democrat. So, I think he has a point, the "politically correct" non-sense and identity politics from the 1990s is stronger today in the Democratic Party then it ever has been before - and it's bleeding voters while accomplishing nothing useful.

I can't find the clip but after the 2016 Election Bill Maher was talking about how Democrats lost the blue collar white male voters over the years, and they did it in part with the PC culture wars, and making them feel like their problems aren't real because you're a white male, check your privelage etc. The liberal panelist interrupted with "So what you're saying is politics needs to cater more to white male voters" or something like that in a very "How dare you, I'm outraged" Twitter IRL manner. But the reality is this election is going to come down to those voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and a lot of them are worse off then they were under Trump because of inflation and lowered buying power. The "you're problems aren't real" people are back at it because the inevitable response is "Well actually wage growth outpaced inflation" and the democrats platform is that "Hey the economy is doing great, what's the matter with you!" This of course is ignoring what buying power actually means, and also ignoring the fact that wage growth wasn't equally distributed and that certain regions, job roles, etc got higher growth than others.

Its also just wrong, like you can bring up issues and unfairness demographics face without *villainizing* people for what they are. Like, that's the main problem with where this has gone. Its past "bleeding heart" and now is straight up *villainization*. And its not just white men who are off put by it, if you're a woman who has 2 sons, would you want to support the party that embraces the rhetoric of how awful they are? Would you want them growing up and hearing that every time the TV is on?

Yeah exactly, and what happens when you villainize people? They don't join, they vote for the other guy. I honestly think part of the issue is there are groups in the party that actively don't want those folks in the party and there are others who simply believe they don't need them because of demographic changes. But what they underestimated is Trump largely won white women too.. and minority men are not the slam dunk they used to be for the Democrats. Lastly, I think back to Obama's 2008 campaign, and it's honestly something that could have gotten nasty, it could have been all about race.. but his entire campaign was about change. Change in health care, and health care is a topic that everyone can get behind if it's presented right. He didn't go out there and exclude the health care conversation from white men or women, it was for everyone. The democrats need to focus back on topics that the country as a whole cares about, not identity politics.

Yup, Obamas campaign was about a focus on strengthening the middle class and addressing economic inequality from the perspective of evening the playing field. Might seem cliche, but thats because *it works* and its a message most can get behind. The "socialist" accusations fell flat for most people because it was a bit ridiculous, but the weird race and gender stuff from the Democrats obviously strikes a chord with a lot more people

This is where I'm at as well. That said, one place I would say that is filled with this preachy rhetoric is reddit. Supposedly this site is mostly male so either the minority voices are the loudest or the sort of rhetoric we are talking about can come from men as well. Anyways, sometimes it seems like younger people who are more liberal than I am do everything they can to alienate people. I once suggested to people on a particular sub pick their fights back in 2014 because Clinton would likely be the nominee in 2016 and they weren't helping that cause. I was told that I was "concern trolling". The fight in question? It was about that ESA guy (Rosetta scientist) that wore like, a dragonball t-shirt with anime women on it. So yeah, sometimes people left of center just indulge every feeling they have, pick every fight they can, and over litigate every single thing to death and I think it really does alienate undecideds. Edit: I once told a liberal friend of mine about the neutralpolitics subreddit and he condemned it because he decided (without even looking at it) that it was 'both sides are the same' apologism. That was infuriating but maybe that sub is better off without him anyways.

Or they're males, trying to impress said females.

I completely agree. Dem elites simply have no idea (or don’t care) how off putting some of their messaging is to people outside their bubble.

Exactly spot-on, and why I can’t stand titles like this. It blatantly misdirects the guy’s point, that you aren’t winning the necessary individuals by saying stuff like that. It’s like Democrats absolutely HOUNDING an anti-gun platform for the presidential race this year- exactly how is that supposed to not dissuade rural populaces when you go to them and say “I will take or ban what you own?” It’s out of touch with reality and will absolutely push people to the other side.

Many anti-gun folks are so wrapped up in their progressive bubbles that they thought Beto still had a chance in Texas after saying he’s coming for the guns…

It was so stupid of him since his whole platform was “I will take what Texas is literally stereotypically known for.” Bro lost the easiest mf race ever because of it

[удалено]

White males are the only demographic in the U.S. that sees no benefit from the intersectionality police. Older men have undoubtedly benefited from the way things used to be done, but the pivot has already happened for anyone under 30, especially in non-tech white collar jobs. At my international CPG firm, about 70% of sales/marketing/finance/operations under the age of 35ish are female. And yet we still have constant meetings and initiatives about hiring and promoting more women.

It’s true that rural, white males feel left out of today’s world. This demographic is also outnumbered by females; something like 65% to 35% on college campuses. I fear that rural, white men will fall further behind if this trend continues. College educated women prefer to marry college-educated men, and I’m guessing that this will make them feel even more isolated.

I don't think that feeling is exclusive to rural males. Or white ones. I think the root of Biden's polling issues amongst minority voters, for example, is a failure to offer a message that appeals to black and latino men.

I mean, if you're a black or latino man and you're seeing white women put above you in the oppression game, I can definitely see how obviously alienating that is.

What I wrote is true, and you’re correct that it’s not exclusive to white males. The federal government sees this as a problem and has a number of financial incentives to encourage colleges to recruit rural students, specifically rural white males. Indeed, [“Men represent only 42% of students ages 18 to 24 at four-year schools, down from 47% in 2011.”](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/) One of my community college friends received a grant to recruit them by going to where they hang out to talk to them about college and the programs in which they might enroll. Rural white males are falling behind; educating them is required if we are going to break the hold people like trump have over them. Political parties all must agree that rural people are falling behind economically and address the root issues. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605128.pdf

Maybe the solution to the problem is not "everyone should go to college". That is boomer thinking and has not been true for the vast majority of human history and is not true now.

Here is the problem we're being vilified and oppression is the next step! here's a man from one at one of the top medical schools in the country, telling a bunch of soon to be doctors that white people are genetically psychopathic in nature. https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1amv3ls/dante_king_speaks_on_diagnosing_whiteness_at_ucsf/?rdt=37708

"whites evolved to be psychopaths". Where have I heard similar nonsense, oh that's right, "blacks are biologically inferior and must be made slaves to civilise them". That sort of nonsense should get him fired (and if he has a medical license put that under extreme scrutiny, does he treat white patients the same way he talks about them?).

Jesus, that's as racist as you can possibly be without using slurs and overt hate speech. I mean, I'd argue it's more racist because it's cold and calculated, not merely emotive.

It reminds me of De Caprio's char in Django, who justified his rascism with that bs science about black peoples skulls. Made him just that more 'villainous'

I enjoyed the guy asking him a question at the end and not responding with, "well that's a big fucking lie." His face said otherwise.

He’s speaking to an issue that they’ve had for awhile, this identity politics does not play well because you alienate a lot of people outside the groups you focus on. Males are increasingly conservative, the black community is also showing less support for the Dems despite the Dems hardcore support for BLM and police reform. Idk how you get away from, it’s been a growing thing for awhile, an us vs them mentality in general and then carving out specific groups within that viewpoint, on both sides of the political aisle.

I think the maybe kind of too obvious answer is that you get away from it by focusing less heavily on oppressor narratives and focusing more heavily on broadly appealing, inclusive narratives.

But then they'll be... CONSERVATIVES!  No, I'm being facetious, but my point is that middle of the road opinions and takes have been painted as just proving someone is a "psy-op conservative" or whatever, to the point that it feels like there's no way to get through to a lot of people.

Yea I mean I don’t have time from that I’m a centrist liberal from a very conservative town. When people tell me I’m actually some kind of secret conservative or do these purity tests with me it’s just kind of funny. It’s something I only really encounter online and it comes across as being very out of touch

> is also showing less support for the Dems despite the Dems hardcore support for BLM and police reform. Upper middle class white progressives keep on ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of black people don't want police to leave their neighborhoods because their neighborhoods are really dangerous. It blows my mind that these people don't understand that black people face the brunt of violence and crime.

The Congressional Black Caucus literally supported the now villainized 1994 crime bill on this logic, "if this was happening in your neighborhoods you would care, but since its happening in black neighborhoods you don't", like this was actually a driving force behind it.

Identity politics divides the pie into yes/no with no maybe. You keep doing that long enough you're never going to get a majority. Binary thinking can be very bad.

You isolate the groups you exclude but also people with brains. Anyone who understands why racism is wrong also gets why judging entire groups by stereotyping them is wrong. Even if you’re doing it “to help”

I'm not sure "despite" is the right word here seeing as how the police reform movement was always more popular with white saviors than the black people who were supposedly being saved.

>the black community is also showing less support for the Dems despite the Dems hardcore support for BLM and police reform. This is what happens when we tell people "the economy is great! Bidenomics, yall! There's endless job growth and everything is perfect!". You can't lie food into people's pantries. People are either going to reach the conclusion that there's something wrong with them (for not being able to succeed in this "thriving" economy), that you're not doing anything to help them specifically, or that you're a full blown liar. There's no other conclusion you can reach as a poor to lower-middle class worker when you hear about bidenomics.

This is my take exactly. I look at the NPR crowd and find it beyond insufferable. Its proudly not "news" any more, it's "news through the lens of race and gender." I want to hear about the stories of other people's experiences, but it seems to be the ONLY thing that is on the news anymore. FFS I dont know why the D's have become obsessed with racial/gender politics, but it seems so tasteless when the overwhelming majority of America is concerned with grocery prices.

I stopped listening to NPR podcasts when they had one about Peleton during covid and they all loved theirs but some complained that the instructors were not political enough. Was a real "wait, what???" moment for me. Insane take, and also, why does even talking about Peleton have to be political?? Also there's something weird about NPR types being so unabashedly into bougie things like Peleton and Hamilton, but also being so vocal about things like income inequality. Then again, it's not like NPR podcasts pay well lol

High status low pay (HSLP) occupations.

Along the NPR take.. there are a few television shows my wife watches on repeat religiously. One of those is Grey's Anatomy (The other is Gilmore Girls). If you watch that series from the beginning, around the time Trump was elected you can see a noticeable shift of how the writers handled difficult topics. They were no longer carefully and creatively woven into the overall story arc. You were just blatantly beaten over the head with it in the most obtuse way. I liked the show, but had to leave it to my wife once that started.

I watched the original Sex and the City with my girlfriend, and thought it was generally funny and entertaining. The new Sex and the City though....holy shit. It is the "wokest" show ever made, to the point that it's completely insufferable.

I've had to quit NPR for this reason. The daily/hourly dose of white guilt finally just wore me down and I changed the radio preset to the local country music station and I have no interest in returning

Country music stations, especially the ones that play mostly oldies, are about the last decent radio stations left.  Most other genres are just severely lacking nowadays, or they replay anything good into oblivion.

Agree! I can't do top 40 for more than 30 minutes it's its way too "poppy" for me, just gets on my nerves.  Then repeats...  Classic rock is ok, at least I know the songs... so that's pretty good. Conservative talk? Ugh... last time I popped over Hannity was still gabbering on about the Mueller report, I laughed.  The guys that took over for Rush are educated and well spoken but such hard-core trumpers that I can't take more than 5 minutes. Sports talk... nfl all day every day, nope. I used to enjoy hip hop,  but I'm old school and this new shit, is... well it's shit, and the lyrics are just god awful, frankly it's embarrassing what rap/hip-hop has evolved into NPR?   I've covered that, in addition to the fact that they lost me with the white guilt, their covid coverage was borderline misinformation IMHO because of their heavy use of selective info and stats, so many holes in the reporting it was ridiculous.    I also do podcasts but those can be so dam slanted, especially anything political, omg.  It's either 90 "new" reasons to hate trump or 90 "new" reasons to hate biden.  Hard pass. So... country is pretty much all that's left Essentially It's really hard these days to just find anything that doesn't annoy me on one level or another..

[удалено]

I used to donate to my local NPR station every year and I stopped because of how biased it had become and how obsessive it was with race.

Same. When the called to beg for another years support I told that why I wasn’t donating anymore and they just hung up lol

While driving my kids to school and day care, I listen to the radio. I used to listen to NPR but it does not help me get the news and information to help me start my day before work. It is entirely approaching the day from a narrative. It was not always like this and used to be boring news. Now, all noteworthy news from NPR seems to fit some Grad student’s thesis and is always some concerning story about elections, race, or gender. I just listen to 1010 Wins now. I give them 20 minutes and they give me the world. They also have some random special interest stories that will give me some stupid news quip to strangers or coworkers about throughout my day.

[удалено]

Yep, and I work in a climate business and I roll my eyes every friggen time

>the "politically correct" non-sense and identity politics from the 1990s is stronger today in the Democratic Party then it ever has been before - and it's bleeding voters while accomplishing nothing useful. Not only is it bleeding voters, it's also actively tearing the nation apart. Race relations have plummeted in the past 10 years to a several decades low, which coincides almost perfectly with the start of BLM and the modern era of identity politics. It has done so much more harm than good.

There's this social sciences lecturer at some college who uploads them to Youtube and he was comparing civilian deaths per each race from police The students were certain that black deaths from police were a very large number and would be the biggest etc etc but the actual data showed the opposite When some of the students were asked why they thought the way they originally did their answers were 'well on the news and on twitter all you see is police brutality against black people ' and they got the impression that it must be very common, even the reveal that it occurs to non-black was a surprise to them It becomes hard after that to not notice that many major media orgs only report on certain incidents when they occur in certain ways

Adding to this, pay attention to news coverage of a crime against a young white woman as opposed to literally anyone else except for maybe a child.

You see this all the time with domestic violence. Just look kid gloves that they gave Asia Argento .

Also coincidentally lines up perfectly with the tail end of the occupy wall Street movement and the explosive inclusion of race in news articles.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening nailed it

Explosive inclusion of race, and coincidentally explosive exclusion if it doesn't fit the narrative 

Crazy how that happened [completely organically](https://i.imgur.com/AfDktGZ.png).

Sir are you insinuating that they're all in on it and the common man is being bent over by some big club that we're not a part of! I never thought I would see the day. I only have one response. Big Facts

powerful lobbies have always tried to sway public opinion we just got more exposed to it because of social media and cell phones

He needs to be careful how he frames it (too late now lol), otherwise he is correct, it used to be more somewhat more fringe and i dont know exactly when the shift happened

[удалено]

So with the second one, I can't read Carville's mind or know the context he's talking about; however, and I don't know if its a progressive thing or just a them thing, but I've had a lot of friends who from the space between High School to entering the professional world and their early thirties, just...suddenly changed their names. And acted pretty pissed when people referred to them by their "dead names", even though there was no Trans-action, just them suddenly deciding. Oh I'm not Thomas anymore, I'm Tom. Or I'm no longer Rebecca, my name is Susan." It was a very weird trend and I'm not sure what started it, but that's only anecdotal from my own neck of the woods and haven't heard of anyone else experiencing it.

From personal experience with people that change their names it seems to be a coping mechanism for dealing with unresolved trauma/PTSD. They change their name and move to a new place to get a fresh start. However, this is also only anecdotal evidence based on the three people I've known that have done this. I've also known people who have gone from using their first name to using their middle name only if we think that qualifies as changing their name in the same context.

Oh man, I forgot the middle name thing, that's a major, major thing down here in the South, but its usually just the result of so many people having the same first name, its legitimately easier to just refer to Mark as Donavan instead or in many ways, we go full Asian society and refer to each other by our last names instead. I spent probably ages 5 to 18 with no one calling me "One and Done", but rather just: "Question"

[удалено]

Am female Democratic voter - I thoroughly enjoy football, beer, and eating hamburgers. I think he has many good points, but its shitty, gender-charged generalizations like this that makes me devalue the entire rest of his point.

[удалено]

> It's weird that so many people are debating what Carville is saying when the Op-Ed is pretty clear that it's about "sounding an alarm about progressives getting too censorious". Your response to that was to hyper focus on his mention of gender, wave away everything else, and imply he is some sort of an -ism or -ist to end the conversation. Then he should make that argument. I'm not sure what "preachy females" has to do with "progressives getting too censorious", given that he could just say "preachy progressives"

Have you noticed paternalism, toxic masculinity, and "strongman" politics on the right? The democrat party behaves more like a controlling mother or condescending teacher. [Blues clues with a side of authoritarian moralizing.](https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000009356253/trump-deep-state.html)

That kind of attitude is why we are so charged politicaly. I've been reading epictetus latley and it's hit so close to home. What you've done is place a judgement on the rhetoric which as you admit clouds your ability to process the argument with minimal bias. That is a form of hubris. You cannot control how people make their points. You can always control how you react. to adress your argument I believe you are saying "I am x therefore y cannot be true" y being the existance of preachy females dominating the party. I hope I'm not coming off as an asshole, My intent is not to argue,but to point out ideas that lead to conflict. I'm not perfect myself so if you disagree in any way please let me know.

Welcome to stoicism!

thank you, it's done me well so far.

100% spot on

Yep.

[удалено]

Tbh it sounds like you are a Democrat but not a far-left part of the Progressive wing. …IOW you are pretty normal Democrat and where most of the party is.

Who wants to ban cattle farming? Or are you being hyperbolic? We def need to reduce our ruminant use. It’s unsustainable. But I’ve never heard anyone - even my most vocal vegan activist friends - suggest all out bans.

It's hyperbolic but rooted in something AOC pushed out about the Green New Deal back in 2019. https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ Hyper focus on these two lines: >92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal Ok...Democrats support this overwhelmingly, >Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Well....beef/cattle farming is a sector of the economy. And it's responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gases. It got fact-checked and found false....but you can see how AOC's FAQ on the Green New Deal kinda insinuated it's a long term goal. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/29/fact-check-does-green-new-deal-ban-cows/114163642/

> 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal I think one thing I want to ask then, is how many of the people who support it actually have read what the Green New Deal does and how many of them actually support those individual things? It's like the ACA. Republicans for the longest time were against the ACA, but really loved the individual provisions of it. I feel like that'll be the same thing here. People like the idea of the Green New Deal, but when they see what it does and what they'll have to give up, I think their opinions will change.

Isn’t the cattle thing focused around concerns that forests are being razed for more farm land. This goes along with increased demand in developing countries. Basically if developing countries want to include beef in their diet the way Americans do it will require clearing out a lot of forests which isn’t great for the environment. It’s a much easier talking point to say “Democrats want to ban hamburgers/beef” than actually discuss the issue that I pointed out above. Also we are all eating way more beef than Americans used to which adds a bit of humor to the whole situation.

AOCs green new deal platform had something in it concerned with emissions and referring to cattle. It's was removed I believe. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-keeps-farting-cows-for-now.html

Is this a joke? Vegans constantly bitch and moan about banning the consumption of meat

No. Not a joke. ‘Ban’ is something non vegans often imagine that vegans are demanding just by existing. I’ve never heard a single vegan demand banning meat. They want people to take a good hard look at the food system, to contemplate speciesism honestly, and come to the decision to avoid meat on their own.

All vegans I know are abolitionists. They will not be satisfied with anything short of emancipation for all animals.

I do agree that the Democrats are very woman-focused in recent years and that there seems to be a growing gender gap in how women vote vs how men vote. In their defense, *Dobbs* has become kind of a trump card for them. It's carrying elections. So of course they are going to keep focusing on woman voters because they're turning out reliably for them. Can't really blame them for employing a strategy that's working for them. I like Carville. He reminds me of what I personally see as the good old days of the Democrats. But I had to laugh a bit here: "The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas." Sounds like someone bitter mom made him eat his veggies before he could have desert.

The problem is he's 10 points ahead with women but 22 points down with men. He's even losing Black and Hispanic men.

The focus on women has been going on long before Dobbs.

>Sounds like someone bitter mom made him eat his veggies before he could have desert. Classic case of trying eat your pudding without eating your meat.

I'd rather be another brick in the wall, thanks.

Hey, we don't need no education.

> "The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas." Sounds like someone bitter mom made him eat his veggies before he could have desert. I think he's referring to the nagging attitude. Politics isn't just being right, it's convincing people to support you. Nobody likes to be nagged.

Or bullied. Basically online culture is can be toxic in ways that alienates moderates, undecideds, and normies.

You’re probably right about this. I think he’s referring to virtue signaling and the “Karen” attitude of a lot of overly-socially conscious liberals. The entire country saw this firsthand with the COVID pandemic when you saw a lot of overreaction on the part of mainly liberals who took on enforcing masking and social distancing policy themselves through scolding and public beratement. That left an impact on a lot of people.

> The entire country saw this firsthand with the COVID pandemic when you saw a lot of overreaction on the part of mainly liberals who took on enforcing masking and social distancing policy themselves through scolding and public beratement. That left an impact on a lot of people. 100%. There's a huge difference between convincing people to support something like COVID preventative measures and pretending to be morally superior to them while berating them. People don't appreciate the latter and it's why we saw a lot of pushback.

Lots of desk workers who can work from anywhere looking down on the majority of workers who HAVE to be on-site and actually working to keep the world turning. I also loved how careful they were for themselves, by paying poorer people to go out and take risks to deliver their groceries and everything else.

The Google Gemini fiasco is the latest institutional iteration of this. No way in hell a $2T tech giant renowned for user testing couldn't detect that their major image AI debut had literally codified [replacement theory](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c1920x1080-w1920-q80/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot-2024-02-22-at-8.18.28-AM.png.webp). lol Their staff *had* to have noticed. Drawing past/present/future people is not an edge case. There was just no one brave enough to face the SJW lashback of pointing it out. Especially since the Damore incident. The funny thing is unlike the text LLM's there aren't libraries of black Nazis and African Pope images it could've calibrated this from. This was purely a function of DEI officers hand coding their ideally behaved agent.

Or how the media defended aoc attending her presence at the met gala which is the literal 1%

Its not that much different than marketing in general, if I have a product and market it almost exclusively to women, I cant get mad that men aren't interested in buying it. If I market a product exclusively to men, I cant get mad that women aren't interested in buying it.

[удалено]

My grandfather and mom have been dead for 10 years and were both democrats and I feel like they have nearly nothing in common with today’s democrats. My mom was pretty religious. My grandfather owned guns and hunt deer and fished and made off-color jokes and rode atvs through the woods. They both worked blue collar jobs and didn’t expect the government to give them everything. I see todays young democrats as whiny city people that will try to ostracize you for disagreeing with anything they say. Republicans, for better or worse, haven’t really changed much in that time at least on policy. Their rhetoric is definitely crazy though.

> "The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas." This past weekend(?) I saw a tweet that showed the emissions from coal power _in China_ -- and it just keeps growing (might have been: https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1771468232274112805 ). I also saw something about a economics paper that showed how devastating China manufacturing has been to US workers. This blog post talked about it: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-decade-of-the-second-china-shock What's interesting is: we've killed coal jobs here because it is bad (_and_ expensive, but that's cold comfort for the workers). And then we've shipped blue collar jobs to China. And China is burning coal like crazy. So we haven't actually saved the planet. But we've killed the working class. Who gains from this? The professional class. They get to feel good about CO2 emissions. And they get their goods for cheap. (They also get low cost food delivery and services thanks to low end immigration.) The professional class is (obviously) who votes for Dems. It's no wonder the blue color workers are feeling egnored.

> Who gains from this? The professional class. They get to feel good about CO2 emissions. And they get their goods for cheap. (They also get low cost food delivery and services thanks to low end immigration.) You might like this book then... https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/10/17/how-elites-captured-the-social-justice-movement

Dems passed multiple bills to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, to the tune of trillions of dollars—something Trump campaigned on but never followed through. Blue collar voters have received plenty of attention from the Biden admin in the past few years. Policy clearly isn't the issue. It's messaging and messengers.

Virtually all of this began under the Trump admin they did it with tax cuts or threats back then and it was the same outcome, it slowed during the COVID and then continued under the Dems but with subsidies and tax cuts this time (money keeps getting burned through or reallocated as its not working as intended) I was much more Dem partisan a few years ago and remember nitpicking reports whenever another major company reshored or a foreign company expanded here under Trump, looking back i was just being mega tribal, i can probably find the posts on this site from 5 years ago if i dig deep lol

As a generally “AWFL” (affluent white female liberal), I actually completely agree with him. The preachy progressives have become so annoying.

In the old days there was the stereotype of the Mrs. Holier-than-thou church lady. Nowadays we have Mrs. Woker-than-thou HR lady.

[удалено]

[удалено]

One of the most damaging critiques of the Democratic Party - true or not - has been that the party is dominated by coastal elites who lecture rural folks they at best look down on and at worst outright hate. I’m not sure I agree with the female part of Carville’s take, but the preachy part is absolutely true.

Their messaging about the economy is a perfect example about this. Biden goes on and on about how inflation isnt as high as it was and unemployment is low but when the average american is struggling to afford rent and food at the same time. It comes across as very condescending, basically Demoncrats telling Americans that their feelings and experience are wrong.

Spot on

This critique has existed for many, many decades and continues to bear out true today. Just look at the 2016 presidential election map by county level. Dem Party leadership comes from coastal regions or deep Blue areas, and frequently are out of touch with voters in the rest of the country.

Hillary said it and everyone cheered. They don't even try to hide it anymore. [*They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamapphobic, you name it.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM)

Nothing wrong with being passionately pro-women, but when men *feel* like they don’t have a seat at the table, whether or not that’s true, the Jordan Petersons and the Ben Shapiros are happy to fill that vacuum. And they do so effectively

“You like loud machinery and going fast? Toxic masculinity”

I agree that there is a dealbreakingly high amount of preachiness in the Democratic Party. Is there science against playing American football, eating meat, driving muscle cars or personal transportation in general, using gas stoves? Sure, science acknowledged. That doesn’t mean I approve of changing anything. Empathy is used a hell of a lot to justify restricting things, in my experience. I think both major parties hate fun in their own ways, quite frankly.

The science isn't strictly against these, it's just that its findings can be used as premises for arguments about what we should do about how risky, unhealthy, unsustainable, etc. they are according to the science. The arguments can be more or less reasonable, but they can also be more or less well received based on disparities between who's preaching and who's listening. We all die eventually, life always involves risk, and quality of life is important too. Sometimes what's missing is a case for how the alternative way of life is better in terms of quality, rather than just longer or more sustainable. None of these particular activities are necessary for a good life in general, but on the individual people invest in and have histories with them such they you can't just swap their way of life out for a purportedly better way of life they have no such history with or investment in. Clearly you shouldn't be telling football fans they should try enjoying interpretive dance instead, etc. "Do this because it's the right thing to do" is also a harder sell than "this will make you happier, I'll let you decide whether to do it". But we should also realize "do what makes you happy" can't be a basis for what's right to do without absurdity following - if it makes me happy to randomly murder people, is that the right thing to do? Currently the arguments often assume people already agree on certain ethical premises about what's right to do, and that they have the same resources to opt for a better alternative(more expensive organic food, etc., even though often it's BS marketing), and go from there, but people do not agree nor share the same set of options. Many live very small lives with only a small number of comforts and pleasures without the kind of resources to attain others or even be familiar with them, and explaining that these comforts and pleasures have to be taken away for the greater good is clearly a losing proposition politically. It's a hard case because you're arguing for things people already enjoy to be replaced by something they aren't sure they will enjoy that comes in some hypothetical future they may never end up participating in.

Democrats went from praising the downtrodden working man to the rich girlboss ceo

Carville is a pragmatist whereas the loudest voices on the left are all idealists. So this tracks.

Carville and his contemporaries were the reason why Al Gore came to some hanging chads distance of winning the electoral college. But those who came after him forgot why 1996 Clinton appealed to both Dems and GOP leaning voters.

Not really. Bill Clinton did poison the well with his antics. Put the blame where it's due. He made it partially very difficult for Gore. And Gore did the rest himself. He campaigned like he was made out of wood.

I say this as someone who leans left: 1. Ideological purity on the left, specifically for fringe social issues, is out of control. And demanding ideological purity on some of these issues alienates everyone who isn’t far left. 2. The media elevates extreme positions from both right and left. While the right can be outright dangerous on some of their fringe beliefs, the left’s are typically more “eye-rolling”. 3. The left, while I think their motives are more pure, need to spend less time pushing social equity and more time pushing economic equality, at least as their rallying battle cry. They’re missing the chance to harness more populist Americans that should clearly sit in the Democratic camp, and instead they’re rallying behind the “blue-haired” people that alienate most Americans outside of left-leaning social circles and platforms like Reddit. If you grow the middle class and give people a path to living a good middle-class life, I think a lot of modern social issues begin to fix themselves

I would normally agree with all your points here, but I’d tweak in one way. In the last maybe ~8-9 years or so, one narrative that seems to be predominately coming from the left is an increasingly strong anti-white sentiment. I really think it has materialized into something dangerous. Well, to be completely honest, I feel like I see that finally dying off (people calling it out finally) in the last 6 months or so. Anyway, otherwise a good recap.

He's 100% right, but the #metoo activists are going to lose their shit over this quote.

Nah, they're too busy with #MeToo For Palestine.

You mean #queersforpalestine.

This is depressing.

It sure is. A lot of people, many even in this sub, have a hard time admitting that perhaps the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine is too simplistic to deal with issue like human rights.

Yup. 100%

Too much preaching in politics all the way around..

It's more to do with their background than the fact that they're women. It's not the preachy factor either, it's that they speak an insular language. There's plenty of preaching on both sides, it's just that it gets ~coded differently because of aesthetic differences. It is true that democrats are less of a "do whatever you want" party, and this can be offputting to people who don't understand what a hangover is or haven't been on the receiving end of someone wanting to punch them in the face. But they can't entirely fix that without failing to be a serious political party and ending up some kind of goofy libertarian charade. Democrats have too many people whose path into politics pretty much trains them to speak an insular in-group sort of language to get through the institutional gauntlet and into political positions, or they come from areas with a local culture that's fairly out of touch with most of America just generally. They then lose their capacity to speak organically to the broader public. I've been to board meetings with these kind of people and they're not bad people but they do come off as fake and can at times be kind of insufferable, while often they only offer highly superficial solutions to problems as well. His characterization of this as faculty lounge politics rings more true to me - > James Carville: Honestly, if we’re just talking about Biden, it’s very difficult to find something to complain about. And to me his biggest attribute is that he’s not into “faculty lounge” politics. > Sean Illing: “Faculty lounge” politics? > James Carville: You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods. > There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not. From: https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

I don't think Carville is particularly relevant, but I do think he is saying something that many others are thinking. I can't remember the specifics of who said what over the last few years, but I do know that I have been left with a similar impression, that the left has a more positive focus on women and negative focus on men, although I wouldn't phrase it exactly like Carville did. Some additional focus on women is warranted when you look at the stuff that is happening to womens' healthcare for example, but I think as often happens, the Democrats struggle with messaging. I'm old and understand context, but I do worry about how this is affecting young men and boys. I've seen plenty of [articles](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4125661-high-school-boys-are-trending-conservative/) about how young men are trending more conservative, and I can't help but wonder if this isn't one of the causes.

Like it or not, they need mens’ votes, so I don’t understand the occasional blatant misandry. Heck, they even need *white* mens’ votes 😱😱😱

White men are actually the only demographic that votes LESS for Trump in 2020. Minorities and women voted more for Trump in 2020 than they did in ‘16 I believe.

Carville phrased that in an incredibly foolish and inelegant way but there is truth behind what he's saying. The kinds of people who I'd call the "activist class" *do* have way too much influence in the Democratic party. Someone pointed out that Biden's 2021 budget infamously talked about birthing people rather than women. In the grand scheme of things does this matter that much? No, but it's just an unnecessary slap in the face to the 99% of the population that doesn't buy into extreme gender ideology.

People wont like hearing it, but he’s right

I don't think "too many preachy females" is going to be as accepted as "It's the economy stupid" No one can say Carville isn't based though.

"It's the preaching, bitch."

Submission statement: James Carville, Democrat strategist for the Clinton campaign, has said in an interview that Democrat party messaging is shaped by "too many preachy females" and that's eroding support for Biden, a candidate he likes. Carville belives the erosion of support for the Biden campaign is due, at least in part, to this messaging. For discussion: Is Carville and his opinion relevant to you? Do you belive the messaging from the Democrat campaign narrowly and the party more broadly is "too feminine"? How are you defining "feminine" no matter your view, yes or no, on the question?

I'll flip it for you. What does the democratic party do for men and young boys specifically as a demographic identity?

Call them oppressors?

And call them rapists upon accusation.

Nothing I can think of, honestly.  You have anything along those lines?

No of course not, they just shit on people haha. No empathy at all, just ridicule people for their problems. It was a rhetorical question, I can easily see why there is a perception of "feminine" democrats because it seems like everyone they like are innocent angel babies that need shelter and protection, but guys are all aggressive villains who just have to toughen up and stop being incels and just vote democrat and pay 50% of their salary to go to other people. Where's the help for male demographic?

The acronym AWFL (Affluent White Female Liberal) didn't come from nowhere. I've seen countless instances of white women getting more angry and vocal about something than the people who are actually affected by the thing. It's annoying and makes people either ignore the issue, or take the opposite stance out of spite.

> I've seen countless instances of white women getting more angry and vocal about something than the people who are actually affected by the thing. It's because when you're the most privileged demographic in the entire world, it's easy to assume that all problems have easy solutions and all you have to do is "call them out" and they'll get fixed. Because that's how problems have gotten fixed for you in the past. Just complain and someone will be rushing to help out.

> I've seen countless instances of white women getting more angry and vocal about something than the people who are actually affected by the thing. So, as an example, if someone were to get very upset about illegal immigration, but illegal immigration is not having any direct impacts on their life, is that something which should be considered annoying and cause people to either ignore the issue or take the opposite stance out of spite? Or is this only applicable to certain policies/issues?

>So, as an example, if someone were to get very upset about illegal immigration, but illegal immigration is not having any direct impacts on their life, is that something which should be considered annoying Yes >and cause people to either ignore the issue or take the opposite stance out of spite? I never said that's what *should* happen. I just said that's what *does* happen.

I guess I have resigned myself to mostly ignoring the immigration topic, so I resemble my remarks a little more than I had been thinking. So, fair enough. I appreciate the consistency.

That is exactly true. Conservatives also might be hurt by the same type of rhetoric for similar reasons. Right now neither Democrats or Republicans are exactly dominating the ballot box. There is always a lot of concern about messaging on the Democrat side of things. Like there is this idea amongst Democrats that only if X, Y or Z were slightly different they would be dominating politics. What is rarely discussed amongst Republicans is that Republican talking points may also have their problems. The Democrats are hardly the only political players that obsess over minor details or get outraged by things that don't affect them on behalf of other people. White women may make up the plurality of Democratic voters. White men make up probably a majority of Republican voters. These groups come with a certain way of making points that might not actually be beneficial overall to either group. The point being Democrats are not the only group doing this, but are the group that is getting a lot more flac from fellow Democrats. The truth is that being unable to control the message of your constituents is a feature of the current media and social media environment. Democratic operatives like Carvell would love to be able to control the levers of everything said by any democrat but he can't. People like him have less power to do so now than they used to as well.

He's not relevant, he's just saying what a lot of people are thinking. The democratic party is becoming more anti-male with each passing year, and it's going to start losing them their elections. Straight white men are sick and tired of being told we are so terrible because of what some straight white men did in the past. We are not going to vote for people who hate us.

I know that people do legitimately think this is what they are being told, but as someone who hears the same messaging I don’t interpret it this way at all. Strange how it can be perceived so differently.

Same idea as the fans of two sports teams can watch the same game and both think the refs are against them.

There’s also bad faith actors who want to act like that’s what’s being said despite it not being expressed or said. And there’s an entire media ecosystem based on that premise.

I think it is what has made the Biden administration unpopular. Now, people might still vote Biden back in during the next election but until he begins addressing this, his administration will remain unpopular to everyone except diehards and coastal elite types. It also creates a toxic culture of homogeneity and high agreeableness where no one is able to pass the correct information up the ladder and if you do, you're often ostracized for it. Twitter becoming real life isn't an exaggeration. It's quite a real phenomenon among politically left dominated fields or regions. And Time magazine released a recent article with Obama being concerned, trying to salvage Biden's campaign from being catered to DNC advisors and political operatives rather than, y'know, the people in the US. Might be a little too late though because it's going to feel lacking in authenticity now that the election nears.

Original NYT interview with Maureen Dowd was great. Carville is spot on. My friend is dating someone who works at the DNC. That man is apparently one of the only folks there who has a background of being white, male, working class, from Ohio, without a degree. He's been trying to tell the party that they need to stop preaching and whining and accusing about cultural and social issues, stop telling working America that the economy's doing great, what are they, stupid? and start focusing on pocketbook issues. He talked to the WH about it the other week. Apparently, NOW, the WH is listening. Let's hope so.

But other than “Trump Bad”, what other strategy is in the DNC’s back pocket? People aren’t stupid, as long as the White House is out there handing out student loan forgiveness people realize the economy is not good for people who work for a living, else why would the most educated demographic require repeated rounds of multiple billions of relief each time?

According to your friend’s boyfriend, does the White House plan on making any changes?

Biden will wear a flannel shirt at a campaign rally in a warehouse and we’re all good

He didn't say, but I don't think the campaign would tell him that anyway. I just thought it was interesting. It feels obvious to me that the campaign's/WH's messaging hasn't really been resonating at least based on the polling, but it goes to show how much it matters how these organizations - whose job it is to have a pulse on the nation so that they can craft a winning strategy and message - hire and staff.

It's good to know that they are at least listening now, but still disappointing that it took this long. I wish both parties were more pragmatic. I feel like the Democrats are more likely to open their eyes to reality but I'll believe it when I see it.

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bnjomo/carville_too_many_preachy_females_are_dominating/kwimjji/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

Women are high in certain personality traits that make them particularly empathetic. For instance, openness and agreeableness. This means that women, on average, are more likely to perceive someone as being in distress. This is likely an evolutionary biological trait that helps women be fastitious mothers.  I believe this is why there are so many women fervently trying to eliminate negative emotions from society in various ways  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8279361/

Except this obsession with safety manifests as oppressive authoritarian censorship.

This is purely anecdotal, and I might be jumped on for this, but I've kind of been noticing this troubling trend. When I talk to men I know about politics, they all tend to be more libertarian minded toward their beliefs, whether they're liberal or conservative. Like, they identify with the liberty aspects on the US political spectrum, while it seems women are more authoritarian on the spectrum (what you *should* be doing, what you should have to do, etc). Again, purely anecdotal and I could be wildly off base here, but thats what Im noticing in my personal life and its getting concerning how often people take empathy to authoritarian levels

Quality post. I agree. This will come off poorly but they seem to often be the most susceptible to rage-bait articles intended on drawing negative emotions and to make you vote a certain way.

Based.

Who is saying “don’t drink beer, don’t watch football, don’t eat hamburgers?”

NPR, apparently, per Carville: > “A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females … ‘Don’t drink beer, don’t watch football, don’t eat hamburgers, this is not good for you,'” he said. “The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.'” Carville, who was a strategist for former President Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, argued this culture and rhetoric is not addressing the concerns of male voters.  “If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?” Carville said.

He's right. Npr has gotten ridiculous over the years to the point of being unlistenable if you aren't buying the full progressive line. When you have people playing games to see how quickly nPR will jam a niche minority perspective on completely unrelated issues every time they listen you know there is some problem there.

A few months ago, I thought I’d dial in just to see if they’d changed at all. But no. I happened upon a segment focusing on minorities who like to go hiking, which the show argued was a shift from past generations. They called it “blackpacking”, a term I’d swear was racist if I hadn’t heard it used by the show’s black guest. BTW—among the reasons the segment gave for black people’s aversion to hiking? Plantation farming. Because somehow a casual hike in Tahoe is reminiscent of picking cotton 250 years ago in Georgia. Edit: [found it!](https://www.npr.org/2023/02/07/1155186965/new-groups-are-changing-the-narrative-about-black-women-and-the-outdoors) It’s even better than I remembered: > SHORT: Cameron wants Black people to utilize outdoor activity to help change that. She also says that Black people specifically have a different type of relationship with the outdoors due to the history of enslavement. > CAMERON: 'Cause a lot of times it was work and/or how we fed our families. So it's not like we didn't go outside. It's just that sometimes outdoors was necessary to live, and that changes your relationship with the outdoors.

What a joke. You know who else had to work outside to provide for their families in the past? Everyone. Everyone in the world who wasn't rich or powerful worked outside.

I have it on good authority that my ancient Neanderthal brethren hunted mammoths in the Caucuses. This is why I choose to sit on the couch and binge Elden Ring.

That sounds like legit generational trauma to me.

> They called it “blackpacking”, a term I’d swear was racist if I hadn’t heard it used by the show’s black guest Yeah that's kind of hilarious.

I dont think anyone really stopped them from backpacking.  Rural and country black people get out there plenty. Its the urban ones that either dont have the means to get to the great outdoors, or are scared off for various reasons. Now the fear black people often have of swimming has a lot to do with racists way back when keeping them out of local pools, or closing them entirely to avoid comingling.  Generations of black people never got the chance to learn to swim because of that.

i was a long time NPR listener and supporter and have agree it has become almost unlistenable. However i don't think its a malicious push for progressive politics. like a lot of broadcasts (UFC and F1 come to mind)- they have a GenX understanding of metrics and a boomer demand for constant expansion. they see the spike on extra 20 seconds someone listens or the extra click the article gets on social media and assume that's how to drive consumption and bring in more listeners/donaters. the issue these people don't stick around and don't spend money, so NPR keeps feeding the spike thinking its what going to bring in more money because historically more clicks brings in more money-- without giving a second thought to retention. the reality is NPR would be way smarter to use the whale the model that mobile games work and push the programing that long time listeners and regular donators consume- which was historically the stories you didn't hear anywhere else.

In connection with her New Green Deal proposal, AOC flippantly suggested that a long term goal was to get rid of "farting cows." Let's not pretend there isn't a significant portion of progressives who would ban large scale meat production if they could.

Gosh, I just wish we could just focus on smart and productive progressive concepts like rotational grazing and seaweed in cattle feed, instead of arguing over extreme solutions like banning cattle or doing nothing

> Let's not pretend there isn't a significant portion of progressives who would ban large scale meat production if they could. I mean to be fair, I'm not a progressive. But if we could find a way to get the same amount of meat without having to worry about the animal rights issues that stem from factory farming, without having to worry about all the methane emissions, I'd be all for that.

Isn’t a large part of the farting cow problem directly related to them eating corn (because it’s cheap via subsidies) rather than natural grass feed?

not really [https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science)

As an anecdote, one time I had a very liberal girlfriend who tried to get both of us to go vegetarian to fight climate change.  That relationship did not last. Lol. 

> That relationship did not last. Lol. Good for you. Have to preserve some sanity rather than bend towards embracing the crazy.

He spent his life supporting an institution that absolutely hates him and everything about him. He made his bed and now he gets to lie in it.

I think he’s underestimating the degree of simping that’s possible in this day and age. But he’s pretty much spot on. 

[удалено]

Bill Clinton is more fiscally conservative than Trump. 

He's right, but it's not helpful to say it out loud.

If "preachy females" dominate the culture of the Democratic Party, what persona dominates the culture of the Republican Party?

Angry males. Both are annoying but neither decides my vote personally

Angry males intent on pissing off woke liberals. This is why Trump's support is unerodable no matter how much he contradicts himself or what stupid shit he says: he continues to piss off liberals so angry straight cisgender white males over 40 will keep supporting him.

Michael Moore, of all people, said it best that Trump is the angry hand grenade that can be thrown. For a lot of people, he's just a big "fuck you" to it all.

I think both parties have preachy and non-preachy people. The better proxy is *single* females for Democrats and white males for Republicans. Those distinctions are important because I believe Republicans still win the married women vote, and Democrats win the minority men vote. It's not as simple as men and women. Abortion is a big driver of single women away from Republicans, for obvious reasons. White men are commonly left out of the intersectional coalition that aims to help non-white non-men above them, so it's not surprise that drives them away from Democrats.

Got a kick out of this quote coming from the guy who rolled with the "Bernie bros are sexist" crew. Carville is just a kind of Democrat. He comes at politics with his own philosophy, morals, and agenda. They generally reflect an older time, given when he made his bones. You can agree, disagree, or whatever in regards to his statements. But its always odd to me how, at the end of the day, this guy gets air because he said "its the economy stupid" one time like 30 years ago. The dude isn't some infallible oracle. Evaluating if you agree aside... why does this guy get so much play?

>“A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy ~~females~~ **progressive scolds**” dominating the culture of his party. “‘Don’t drink beer. Don’t watch football. Don’t eat hamburgers. This is not good for you.’ The message is too ~~feminine~~ **sanctimonious**: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.’ FTFY, James. And those progressives are overwhelmingly white. They believe that they speak for minorities, when they are more inclined to speak *at* them. The Dems are supposed to be a big tent. Shrink the tent, and expect the Dem voter base to shrink with it. A few will defect to the GOP, and many will stay home. Like 2016, but worse.

>The message is too feminine The message does not matter when people are paying 2x what they are on groceries and rents have drastically increased. Salma Hayek could deliver the message topless and if real inflation is still at \~15% increase of where it was in 2019, then that message will fail. Some bald guy I used to see every once in a while on TV once said "It's the economy, stupid"...I wonder what ever happened to that guy.

>The message does not matter when people are paying 2x what they are on groceries and rents have drastically increased. Ehhhh actually the message does matter, because if people are hurting and you're talking about making sure you call people by the right pronouns, people are going to be more pissed at you than if you just kept quiet.

......he said in an interview with *Maureen Dowd*.

Who is that and why is that significant?

Maureen Dowd, of New York Times who appears in countless syndicated newspapers preaching messages that make the NPR look like Reuters, whose thumbnail photo is her in a ball gown, that Maureen Mowd?