How are trans people in Iowa supposed to be excited to vote for a candidate who releases and ad like this? (www.dailykos.com)

submitted 8 hours ago by WoodScientist@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Remember, it's your duty to vote for someone who wants you dead, because the other guy wants you even more dead!

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social 1 points 6 minutes ago

Oh no, 1% of the population.

Probably would have been better off talking about general progressive or even queer solidarity.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Wait, what happened to the lesser evil? I thought throwing minorities under the bus in order to prevent the greater evil was totally fine.

[-] Bristlecone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

We don't need excited voters right now. We just need resigned voters. Let's not be stupid again

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

“As a kid in a wheelchair, I faced my share of bullying. It’s why I believe that no Iowan should face discrimination. As a Paralympian, I also know it’s important to have rules. It’s why I oppose males competing in female sports, something that is already illegal in Iowa. I’m against taxpayers paying for sex changes too. Anyone tells you any different is lying. I’m Josh Turek. I approve this message. It’s time to stop the nonsense from both extremes and start to focus on lowering costs for Iowans.”

What a disgusting piece of shit. You are the bully, you just found some people easier to bully than yourself and like the feeling.

To those shaming people for daring to criticize a democrat: There's a difference between vote shaming and criticism of someone who hates you. Telling trans folks they can't be hurt by things like this because Republicans want to lynch them is some pussy shit. Try just once to imagine being in their shoes. Both doors close on you, and those who still have one open door won't even let you grieve your basic human rights. Criticism is the least these invertebrate "leaders" are owed.

[-] Snowies@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

In December 2024 the NCAA counted just under 510,000 collegiate level athletes. That same year less than 10 of them were transgender.

One study found that of the trans women who competed in sports about 41% of them did improve their competition level.

However, the sample size used to determine this statistic was 52 transgender women over a period of 8 years.

This problem is so niche that it’s difficult to even study.

They have us all worked up over nothing in the interim all trans people see is millions of people debating our rights and hyper-fixating on all the ways we might be different, when most of us don’t even compete in the first place.

Trans people are famously under-represented in sports as a percentage of our overall population… mostly because we are terrified of the bad optics and the circus it brings.

[-] emmy5482@quokk.au 1 points 4 hours ago

I'm not in the US.

And you're not supposed to vote for them.

You're somehow supposed to run yourself.

I don't say this because it's easy, but because it's kind of the only way.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 hours ago

They don't care. This is just a numbers game to these assholes. By taking this position, they risk losing 5% and hope to gain 10%. (don't quote me on the exact polling numbers...but, you get the point)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 45 minutes ago

Hey, it worked for Kamala!

(Oh wait.)

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago

Option A:

protest over a huge transgression, in support of equality

Option B:

protest over A MILLION issues, including a huge transgression, in support of equality

[+] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -9 points 8 hours ago

No election is a binary choice, as each election effects the elections that come after it. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" tell you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the simple fact that anyone trying to compress an election down to a binary choice has the attention span and memory of a goldfish.

[-] Bristlecone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I agree with you theoretically, but in practicality, in US politics currently, that's how you get Trump

[-] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 15 points 5 hours ago

No election is a binary choice

This is, as a matter of political science, incorrect.

Currently, almost every election in the United States ultimately boils down to a binary choice, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

You can certainly disagree with the candidates, the platforms and the messaging all you want, but the truth is that (in almost every first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all election in the United States) one of two people (usually a Democrat or a Republican) will ultimately win--and to the winner go all of the spoils. That's the system we currently have, and as someone who agrees that it sucks, I highly recommend advocating for state and local reforms to make elections laws more democratic.

What does candidate A represent? How does it compare to candidate B? Fundamentally, the question absolutely boils down to "which one of these two people do I want to win, and which one of the two do I want to lose?" And that is the basic question by which the informed and politically-aware voter ultimately ought to make a strategic decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_voting

Vote with your heart AND with your brain.

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 3 hours ago

I might be incorrect, but I think they are trying to suggest that no election is a standalone choice where the only downstream effect is that one candidate wins over the other. Each election outcome effects the elections that come after it. If a moderate republican won last time they might try to run a more conservative one next time to test the waters. If a progressive dem lost the dems are likely to use that as a reason to not run a progressive next time.

They may be suggesting that voting for an anti trans dem now opens the door for more anti trans or anti-XYZ dems in the future. Do we want to get to a place where the Democratic Party is comfortable running anti choice candidates or anti public school candidates? Basically the idea is to signal to the party that they will not ever win with this message, even against fascists. Along the same line of thinking, but as a rebuttal to what I'm assuming is their conclusion, an R in office might change policies or do harm that a dem may not be able to reverse, regardless of if they win next or not.

I'm not suggesting people not vote for him, and I'm not suggesting vote blue no matter who, I'm just adding some context for how I interpreted the comment. I personally am a vote blue no matter who person so far. Maybe it makes me a coward, maybe it makes me pragmatic, maybe both. I do think I understand trans people withholding their vote if this is their candidate though. I won't blame them for standing up for themselves, since the rest of us seem willing to throw them under the bus.

[-] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 2 points 2 hours ago

That very well may be so, but even still I would argue that the primaries are really the time to hash out policy and candidate positions.

I'm not from Iowa, luckily, but Turek beat his main primary opponent by more than 25%, which suggests he is more tapped into Iowa political leanings than the average online commentator. I'm from Oregon, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that whoever Iowa elects is going to be much more "moderate" than the people who represent me and my state.

Regardless, the choice right now (and it very much is a binary one) is whether Iowa wants to send a Democrat, Turek, or a Republican, Hinton, to the Senate. Come January, it'll either be Turek or Hinton--a de facto binary outcome. And that singular choice may mean the difference between a slim Democratic majority or a slim Republican one.

What will a Democratic Senate mean for the next two years? It's hard to be sure, since Trump can be more than a little bit unpredictable. But at the very least it means Democratic control of Senate committees, which will go a long way towards holding the Trump admin at least a little bit accountable for their words and actions. Speaking personally, I would always rather have the Democrats in power than the Republicans, easily.

So again, people should vote with their hearts, without a doubt, but they should also understand the strategies at play and vote with their brains, too.

To be honest, whether it's FPTP elections or the power dynamics in Washington DC, it is a little bit exhausting to have to explain this stuff every 2 years... But people should be informed about how the system works and vote accordingly.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

Elections are always a binary choice. If you want to send a message, the time to do it is during primaries or any day other than election day. On that day, you can choose to support the lesser evil, or you can support the greater evil. It's up to you to decide which is which, but that's always the choice. Staying home, voting for a third party, or writing in some name that will never win, those all support the greater evil.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026

47 points (96.1% liked)

politics

31535 readers

2685 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News