Great piece. Situation is more threatening than in 2017. I do want to see male reporters and journalist writing and talking about this. That would bring this more to the 2024 cultural environment.
With Democrats feeling heat at home, it's not just congressional Democrats who have to worry about potential primaries next spring/summer, but state legislative Democrats. The 2018 cycle that brought AOC to Congress by ousting an incumbent congressman in a primary also brought Julia Salazar to the New York Senate by ousting an incumbent senator in a primary.
The incumbent Democrats can protect themselves against Tea Party challengers by enacting one-stage, pairwise-rated elections. Democratic incumbent would still have Tea Party challengers, but there would be no primary in which only hyper-engaged Democrats weigh in on the choice between the incumbent and the challenger. Instead, all voters, Democrat and Republican, would have an equal say in the choice between the incumbent and the challenger.
As a side-effect, such a voting system would result in counting Democratic voters equally with Republicans in the choice between a Republican giving Trump a blanket check and one acting as a restraint.
Democrats just need to be Democrats. Just people. In the coming elections, the tables will turn again. And voters will be seeking sanity and common sense. That’s where being a Democrat will really count.
Interesting article overall, but I'm not sure how it can be said that "Harris hardly ever emphasized gender on the campaign trail". The democrats ran mostly on abortion, which obviously is a topic that a much larger direct effect on women than men. I remember Michelle Obama speaking to a group of men in October, making the case of why abortion should matter to them. Harris had a lot to say to women, and some things to say to everyone, but I'm not sure if I ever heard her tackle a topic that was specifically for or of primary importance to men.
In my opinion there is no leader of any political party in this country that can channel the discontent of the notoriously fickle American electorate now experiencing buyer's remorse over what they bought in the last election. Project 2025-the gift that keeps on giving.
Dems are not perfect, and may be slow to accept this tragedy. But the main reason VP Harris lost, is because the White Nationalist Party, which has always been a part of our history under some name, bought an election. I think our discussion and action must be based on telling the truth about the R party, and not putting up with this coup.
Please stop dividing democrats. We marched in 2016 eagerly. We did not go away. Neither did Pelosi. The women voted for Kamala. It was racism and misogyny with their solid history with Republicans who could not and would not vote for a woman. This post makes women and men angry by your tone deafness. To say misogyny, Russia, Citizens United was not an issue is 2016 and against Kamala plus racism is beyond tone deaf. Men are scared otherwise they wouldn’t support the felon or any republican.
Shockingly, when you ignore half of the voters i.e. men, you'll lose elections. Dems lost to Trump twice. Hillary lost to Trump because "America needs a woman as President". No, it doesn't, it needs someone not crazy like Trump and MAGA.
Also, misogyny is not why Hillary and Kamala lost. Just ask Kristi Noem, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert.
You aren't a man, so you wouldn't understand. Even my most super liberal friend in Seattle took notice when his son was in school. He described it as "The undeclared war on boys."
The real evidence is in the vote. Dems lost to Trump TWICE! And his biggest voting block was young men. Dems are selling what young men aren't buying. Unless you want to bring back literacy tests and poll taxes for voting, low IQ, and low information, voters are going to vote.
BTW, I voted for Hillary and Kamala, and I've never voted for a Republican in 50 years of voting. I'm for Universal Healthcare, and I was for Gay Marriage before the gays were for it.
Isn’t this an obvious answer? The women’s march was largely performative and ineffective. We marched once and never again. Susan Collins confirmed Kavanaugh. Roe was overturned 5 years later.
And to think, that was when we thought most people were on our side.
So why would anyone think a repeat would be a good use of their time when most people actively voted for this?
We do not need a made-for-TikTok version of activism. None of the protests so far have any clear demands or objectives and don’t appear to be well coordinated. This isn’t a “female activism” problem, it’s a problem of trying to mobilize a movement in a society where community has been cast aside in favor of the individual. Now we’re seeing the long term damage of “bowling alone.” I think these movements will pick up steam only when people aren’t afraid to start taking much of the work behind them offline.
Also, I’m sorry but fuck strategists. Why are democrats seemingly incapable of authentic communication? No wonder they come across as stilted and insincere. Is there any evidence that these consulting firms and data hounds actually provide any value? To me, it would appear not. Harris and Walz obeyed the strategists and where did that get them?
I really don't give a shit what any Democrat has to say if they are not fighting. Bernie, AOC, Jasmine Crockett and Tim Walz are filling a void that inept Democrats are refusing to fill. Dems like Schumer, Durbin, etc., have to go. In fact, the ten Dems that voted for the CR bill and the ten Dems that voted to censure Al Green are not Dems that I care to hear from or would ever vote for again. Durbin has lost my vote, and I'm looking forward to a primary challenger to him in his next election bid. Also, as a white male who is sick of this shit. F#ck the patriarchy. But great article, Lauren! You are a welcome addition to The Bulwark family.
The more purple and green haire with pierced faces, shrill tones of the voice, and lecturing slogans there are, then, the more silent, majority types, young and old vote for Republicans. A successful middle of the road governor who can administer reasonable Progressive improvements to our electoral and constitution would win.
Obsessing about skin or ethnic ancestry dwill become a mil stone my next sign? Trump weekens US Ghastly and unintentionally comic hairdos, do not garner adequate votes to win elections. Although I do like them all each and everyone they are terrific. Simply fabulous marvelous!
Re: "...strategists have urged party leaders to focus on talking about how issues relate to men and women equally and speak to broader challenges rather than dividing them on gender lines."
That sounds right to me. How about something like this. "Donald Trump has dismantled the Department of Education arguing that the states are better at determining what should be done with education dollars than the federal government. Fine. So now, instead of tax money going to Washington and then being doled out to the states SPECIFICALLY for education, it'll just be left to the legislature in Jackson and Little Rock and Montgomery to allocate it. Who thinks that's going to work out to the benefit of the average Mississippian or Arkansan or Alabamian?"
Since none of those states give more than they get, they're going to be on the losing end of that deal. And, unless you can afford the private school tuition, your local school is going to suffer. And even if you CAN afford the tuition, the only private schools that will get any money at all are the ones who grease the skids with whomever makes that decision.
That's the kind of thing that might resonate with voters. Everyone cares about their kids.
Whiew...complex issues draw complex comments. Sure women can find a new balance this time.Of course. I'd like to emphasize Lauren's remarks regarding community; As an older man living alone I know community brings relief from sadness as well as the opportunity to restructure how we exchange ideas and this leads to voting. The women who lead our group are angry AND smart! Prices are high, violence in the home is very much still there. Our group has old folks, high school students, the group who picks up garbage every week, and women we used to call "shop girls" who meet others daily, engage deeply, and know how to build community. All of us, including me, an old man, feel energized and even in lousy weather are out on the street. We write blogs, knock on doors, and we are computer literate; we know what is going on and what to do.
It's not rocket surgery. The Dems don't need to find the magic strategy that will win over just the right mix of voters. The need to be out there, talking to voters like Bernie and Alexandria and Tim, convincing voters that you care about them and will fight for them the whole time. Hiding for 18 months and then showing up with a new strategy the summer before an election will not work. Democrats who honestly think it is bad for them to be engaging with voters should bow out next election in favor of candidates who will engage with voters.
Do have to agree that there are some democrats that don't like to interact with women! I think we NEED more AOC's! She's smart and not apologetic! Bravo!
Great piece. Situation is more threatening than in 2017. I do want to see male reporters and journalist writing and talking about this. That would bring this more to the 2024 cultural environment.
With Democrats feeling heat at home, it's not just congressional Democrats who have to worry about potential primaries next spring/summer, but state legislative Democrats. The 2018 cycle that brought AOC to Congress by ousting an incumbent congressman in a primary also brought Julia Salazar to the New York Senate by ousting an incumbent senator in a primary.
The incumbent Democrats can protect themselves against Tea Party challengers by enacting one-stage, pairwise-rated elections. Democratic incumbent would still have Tea Party challengers, but there would be no primary in which only hyper-engaged Democrats weigh in on the choice between the incumbent and the challenger. Instead, all voters, Democrat and Republican, would have an equal say in the choice between the incumbent and the challenger.
As a side-effect, such a voting system would result in counting Democratic voters equally with Republicans in the choice between a Republican giving Trump a blanket check and one acting as a restraint.
Democrats just need to be Democrats. Just people. In the coming elections, the tables will turn again. And voters will be seeking sanity and common sense. That’s where being a Democrat will really count.
Interesting article overall, but I'm not sure how it can be said that "Harris hardly ever emphasized gender on the campaign trail". The democrats ran mostly on abortion, which obviously is a topic that a much larger direct effect on women than men. I remember Michelle Obama speaking to a group of men in October, making the case of why abortion should matter to them. Harris had a lot to say to women, and some things to say to everyone, but I'm not sure if I ever heard her tackle a topic that was specifically for or of primary importance to men.
In my opinion there is no leader of any political party in this country that can channel the discontent of the notoriously fickle American electorate now experiencing buyer's remorse over what they bought in the last election. Project 2025-the gift that keeps on giving.
Dems are not perfect, and may be slow to accept this tragedy. But the main reason VP Harris lost, is because the White Nationalist Party, which has always been a part of our history under some name, bought an election. I think our discussion and action must be based on telling the truth about the R party, and not putting up with this coup.
Please stop dividing democrats. We marched in 2016 eagerly. We did not go away. Neither did Pelosi. The women voted for Kamala. It was racism and misogyny with their solid history with Republicans who could not and would not vote for a woman. This post makes women and men angry by your tone deafness. To say misogyny, Russia, Citizens United was not an issue is 2016 and against Kamala plus racism is beyond tone deaf. Men are scared otherwise they wouldn’t support the felon or any republican.
Shockingly, when you ignore half of the voters i.e. men, you'll lose elections. Dems lost to Trump twice. Hillary lost to Trump because "America needs a woman as President". No, it doesn't, it needs someone not crazy like Trump and MAGA.
Also, misogyny is not why Hillary and Kamala lost. Just ask Kristi Noem, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert.
In what way do Dems ignore men?
Noem, Greene and Boebert will never sniff a national election; they appeal to low IQ voters in their districts. And they are crazy, wacko maga.
You aren't a man, so you wouldn't understand. Even my most super liberal friend in Seattle took notice when his son was in school. He described it as "The undeclared war on boys."
The real evidence is in the vote. Dems lost to Trump TWICE! And his biggest voting block was young men. Dems are selling what young men aren't buying. Unless you want to bring back literacy tests and poll taxes for voting, low IQ, and low information, voters are going to vote.
BTW, I voted for Hillary and Kamala, and I've never voted for a Republican in 50 years of voting. I'm for Universal Healthcare, and I was for Gay Marriage before the gays were for it.
Again, in what way do Dems ignore men?
I'm sure you have specifics.
Isn’t this an obvious answer? The women’s march was largely performative and ineffective. We marched once and never again. Susan Collins confirmed Kavanaugh. Roe was overturned 5 years later.
And to think, that was when we thought most people were on our side.
So why would anyone think a repeat would be a good use of their time when most people actively voted for this?
We do not need a made-for-TikTok version of activism. None of the protests so far have any clear demands or objectives and don’t appear to be well coordinated. This isn’t a “female activism” problem, it’s a problem of trying to mobilize a movement in a society where community has been cast aside in favor of the individual. Now we’re seeing the long term damage of “bowling alone.” I think these movements will pick up steam only when people aren’t afraid to start taking much of the work behind them offline.
Also, I’m sorry but fuck strategists. Why are democrats seemingly incapable of authentic communication? No wonder they come across as stilted and insincere. Is there any evidence that these consulting firms and data hounds actually provide any value? To me, it would appear not. Harris and Walz obeyed the strategists and where did that get them?
I still have mine!
I really don't give a shit what any Democrat has to say if they are not fighting. Bernie, AOC, Jasmine Crockett and Tim Walz are filling a void that inept Democrats are refusing to fill. Dems like Schumer, Durbin, etc., have to go. In fact, the ten Dems that voted for the CR bill and the ten Dems that voted to censure Al Green are not Dems that I care to hear from or would ever vote for again. Durbin has lost my vote, and I'm looking forward to a primary challenger to him in his next election bid. Also, as a white male who is sick of this shit. F#ck the patriarchy. But great article, Lauren! You are a welcome addition to The Bulwark family.
The more purple and green haire with pierced faces, shrill tones of the voice, and lecturing slogans there are, then, the more silent, majority types, young and old vote for Republicans. A successful middle of the road governor who can administer reasonable Progressive improvements to our electoral and constitution would win.
Obsessing about skin or ethnic ancestry dwill become a mil stone my next sign? Trump weekens US Ghastly and unintentionally comic hairdos, do not garner adequate votes to win elections. Although I do like them all each and everyone they are terrific. Simply fabulous marvelous!
Re: "...strategists have urged party leaders to focus on talking about how issues relate to men and women equally and speak to broader challenges rather than dividing them on gender lines."
That sounds right to me. How about something like this. "Donald Trump has dismantled the Department of Education arguing that the states are better at determining what should be done with education dollars than the federal government. Fine. So now, instead of tax money going to Washington and then being doled out to the states SPECIFICALLY for education, it'll just be left to the legislature in Jackson and Little Rock and Montgomery to allocate it. Who thinks that's going to work out to the benefit of the average Mississippian or Arkansan or Alabamian?"
Since none of those states give more than they get, they're going to be on the losing end of that deal. And, unless you can afford the private school tuition, your local school is going to suffer. And even if you CAN afford the tuition, the only private schools that will get any money at all are the ones who grease the skids with whomever makes that decision.
That's the kind of thing that might resonate with voters. Everyone cares about their kids.
Whiew...complex issues draw complex comments. Sure women can find a new balance this time.Of course. I'd like to emphasize Lauren's remarks regarding community; As an older man living alone I know community brings relief from sadness as well as the opportunity to restructure how we exchange ideas and this leads to voting. The women who lead our group are angry AND smart! Prices are high, violence in the home is very much still there. Our group has old folks, high school students, the group who picks up garbage every week, and women we used to call "shop girls" who meet others daily, engage deeply, and know how to build community. All of us, including me, an old man, feel energized and even in lousy weather are out on the street. We write blogs, knock on doors, and we are computer literate; we know what is going on and what to do.
It's not rocket surgery. The Dems don't need to find the magic strategy that will win over just the right mix of voters. The need to be out there, talking to voters like Bernie and Alexandria and Tim, convincing voters that you care about them and will fight for them the whole time. Hiding for 18 months and then showing up with a new strategy the summer before an election will not work. Democrats who honestly think it is bad for them to be engaging with voters should bow out next election in favor of candidates who will engage with voters.
Do have to agree that there are some democrats that don't like to interact with women! I think we NEED more AOC's! She's smart and not apologetic! Bravo!