What exactly is the democratic party going to stand for in 2026 and 2028?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions. [/quote]
Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?[/quote]

All of those issues dominate the democratic agenda. In California, a boy was allowed to compete in and win the women's division of a track tournament. This is what blue state people want. [/quote]

If a majority Californians choose to permit biological males playing in female sports, that's their business. No Californian politician will be POTUS anytime soon due to how California is perceived to be too liberal for the taste of too many swing voters in swing states.

Based on Trump's history in politics, he will struggle to maintain job approval support from the swing voters who determine national elections and when that support is lacking for the sitting POTUS, the incumbent party has no chance of winning the POTUS election. Odds of Trump maintaining enough swing voter support through 2028 to give the GOP a chance in the next POTUS election is in the 10% to 20% range so while nothing is guaranteed, odds are the strongly in the favor of a Dem being our next POTUS; it just won't be a Californian politician. [/quote]Harris was pretty close to being President.[/quote]

Harris made it close due to a weak opponent with a low ceiling and she also campaigned her butt off while beating Trump in their debate. Harris never really had a chance considering she was the VP of a very unpopular POTUS who ditched the race just three months before Election Day.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions. [/quote]
Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?[/quote]

All of those issues dominate the democratic agenda. In California, a boy was allowed to compete in and win the women's division of a track tournament. This is what blue state people want. [/quote]

If a majority Californians choose to permit biological males playing in female sports, that's their business. No Californian politician will be POTUS anytime soon due to how California is perceived to be too liberal for the taste of too many swing voters in swing states.

Based on Trump's history in politics, he will struggle to maintain job approval support from the swing voters who determine national elections and when that support is lacking for the sitting POTUS, the incumbent party has no chance of winning the POTUS election. Odds of Trump maintaining enough swing voter support through 2028 to give the GOP a chance in the next POTUS election is in the 10% to 20% range so while nothing is guaranteed, odds are the strongly in the favor of a Dem being our next POTUS; it just won't be a Californian politician. [/quote]

So California for doing whatever it wants and it's "their business", but Obergefell for pushing gay marriage nationally?

Do I have that correct, lefties?[/quote]

Many social issues being determined on a state level makes sense in our very diverse and politically divided country. That's my personal opinion. If you think most or all issues should be settled in a uniform manner across all 50 states at the direction of our Federal Government, that's ok too. I respect your right to have your own opinion. Americans used to respect each other's opinions and political discourse among folks with differing opinions was possible before the current breed of hyper-partisan freaks came along.[/quote]

Hyper partisanship is definitely a problem. There is no agree to disagree, let’s grab a coffee later. Discourse isn’t a thing anymore. So sad and detrimental to society.

FWIW we need to increase the number of House Representatives so more people can be heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

[Anonymous]

It will probably stand for Never Trump.

They cant move on from Trump or figure out he's popular

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will probably stand for Never Trump.

They cant move on from Trump or figure out he's popular

Trump is still whining about Biden virtually every day. And Trump is far from popular (and getting worse). His failures are stacking up. It's not even clear why he wants to be President any more beyond the grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

A bill in the senate to stop it recently failed on a party line vote. The dem leaders, are, in fact, supportive of. it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

A bill in the senate to stop it recently failed on a party line vote. The dem leaders, are, in fact, supportive of. it.

Sounds to me like the Dems in the Senate support a state or local jurisdiction's right to determine whether or not biological males can compete in women's sports. If Dems in the Senate supported a bill that protected a right for biological males to compete in women's sports as a Federal law, your point would be valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

A bill in the senate to stop it recently failed on a party line vote. The dem leaders, are, in fact, supportive of. it.

Sounds to me like the Dems in the Senate support a state or local jurisdiction's right to determine whether or not biological males can compete in women's sports. If Dems in the Senate supported a bill that protected a right for biological males to compete in women's sports as a Federal law, your point would be valid.

Title IX protects women’s sports and is a federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will probably stand for Never Trump.

They cant move on from Trump or figure out he's popular

Trump is still whining about Biden virtually every day. And Trump is far from popular (and getting worse). His failures are stacking up. It's not even clear why he wants to be President any more beyond the grift.

Trump’s approval is going up not down.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-update-polls-2074502

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52286-donald-trump-rising-popularity-approval-budget-2026-midterms-democrats-leader-policing-race-elon-musk-may-30-june-2-2025-economist-yougov-poll

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/06/04/trump-approval-rating-tracker-bounces-back-from-april-slump-in-latest-poll/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

A bill in the senate to stop it recently failed on a party line vote. The dem leaders, are, in fact, supportive of. it.

Sounds to me like the Dems in the Senate support a state or local jurisdiction's right to determine whether or not biological males can compete in women's sports. If Dems in the Senate supported a bill that protected a right for biological males to compete in women's sports as a Federal law, your point would be valid.

Title IX protects women’s sports and is a federal law.

And California has a state law that expands on Title IX to include a ban on gender identity discrimination. Other states do not. If you think a Federal Law should be made to rule California's state law unconstitutional, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. Some people think states should have the right to make decisions on social issues. Kinda like how some people supported Roe V Wade while others thought states should be allowed to determine abortion laws within their borders. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

A bill in the senate to stop it recently failed on a party line vote. The dem leaders, are, in fact, supportive of. it.

Sounds to me like the Dems in the Senate support a state or local jurisdiction's right to determine whether or not biological males can compete in women's sports. If Dems in the Senate supported a bill that protected a right for biological males to compete in women's sports as a Federal law, your point would be valid.

Title IX protects women’s sports and is a federal law.

And California has a state law that expands on Title IX to include a ban on gender identity discrimination. Other states do not. If you think a Federal Law should be made to rule California's state law unconstitutional, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. Some people think states should have the right to make decisions on social issues. Kinda like how some people supported Roe V Wade while others thought states should be allowed to determine abortion laws within their borders. Get it?

I get that the court precedents don’t allow state laws to trump federal, and I get that violations for Title IX allow for a loss of federal education funding. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

When even Gavin is saying it’s unfair for boys to claim girls’ sports championships, you know the tide has turned. Why Dems aren’t folding on this issue is beyond me.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/california-governor-gavin-newsom-transgender-athletes-sports-unfair?srsltid=AfmBOopzR2KG11QWDezw3A5XPQxrXcu0Gx-kKkMDKLd5Y8KlQ3jRDO92

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.