Outkick - 'Tucker Carlson Completely Misses Point On Transgender Athletes In Women's Sports'

I noted that. Also that the speech was described as a 'rant'. But the crux of the argument was that winning on the matter of men in women's sports is important. It's a culture shift away from giving people what they want just because they want it i.e. 'be kind'. Mind, this argument is only a step away from the Marxist ideal: people should be forced to be free. No, they really shouldn't. But it doesn't help homeless people to let them continue to live on the streets and take drugs rather than help them to come to better life outcomes, which, in the US, probably means a huge culture shift towards free at the point of access health care, proper Federal funding of education etc where all schools are identically funded and those failing get help - which won't go down well with Republicans.

That's perhaps why Trump said "Don’t bring that subject up, because there’s no election right now. But about a week before the election, bring it up, because you can’t lose." The Republicans don't even need to deliver much on this - if you consider all the shenanigans around their attempt to stop Medicare's funding 'gender-affirming care ' for minors as part of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', the main outcome is that they'll be able to say "It's thanks to Democrats that your tax dollars go towards sex-changes for kids". Same for boys in girls sports.

Of course if tariffs tank the economy it won't matter. If the election's close it might well do.

Yes, many years ago he was lovely.

If swing voters won’t vote for Harris because they think she’s “more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues than on helping the middle class” why would they vote for Trump if he focuses more on cultural issues?

So it isn’t low hanging fruit in terms of winning over swing voters, they aren’t interested.

In the US, if the economy was doing well then whoever is in power can get away with more “cultural issues” but when people are feeling under economic pressure they vote with their wallets. If the Republicans are ineffective at curbing immigration or boosting the economy, voters will be pissed off if they seem to spend too much time on cultural issues just as they were with the Democrats.

I think the UK is different, though swing voters still more swayed by finances than anything else, but here I think CapeGooseberry‘s point about truth has more impact. And Starmer seems to be of that mind to some extent - MPs just sound like dissembling idiots if they can’t way what a woman is, and voters don’t want to vote for someone they can’t trust.

It's pretty hard to feel sorry for the Democrat Party. They have brought this on themselves.

I forgot to add the link to Blueprint:

blueprint-research.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8

According to the Democratic research organization Blueprint, "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was the top reason swing voters didn't choose Harris in 2024 (though high rates of inflation and illegal immigration under Biden were very close behind). I've seen other polls that rate transgender issues more as of middling importance - a lot depends on the wording of the question, and at the end of the day what people say is important to them is only a rough guide to the complex of perceptions and opinions that determine how, or whether, they vote.

All the same, the Republicans have been concentrating their attacks on policies, like that of allowing men in women's sports, that not even many Democratic voters support, let alone swing voters. They're not "pandering to core supporters"; they're picking low-hanging fruit. The time and money spent on this is negligible compared to the time and money spent on trying to curb illegal immigration, and if it were in politicians' power to fix the economy to everyone's satisfaction, every administration would make sure it did. You and Carlson are right of course that the Republicans won't get away with doing nothing else, but they'd be daft to stop.

I think several posters are missing the point here about transgenderism - it is not about a boys winning in girls sports but is about a much bigger picture that does affect all other issues - TRUTH.

The politicians supporting transgenderism are telling the public that they must ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ignore clear basic truths, ignore science, and believe what they are told to believe - or be punished - even though everyone knows it is not true. It is the clearest example of politicians manipulating the public, trying to hide what is actually going on, imposing a harmful doctrine. So when it comes to voting who do they trust? The politician who is trying to get you to believe in absurdities?

The famous soccer moms of Bill Clinton era campaigns. That demographic isn't as fashionable in today's Democratic Party, but they're still around, there are lots of them and they vote. One of the classic swing constituencies.

They're not very keen on Trump personally, for multiple reasons that will be obvious.

On the other hand: they worry about the economy like everyone else; they worry about crime (lots of them are gun owners); they don't like ideological nonsense being taught in schools; they definitely don't want boys in their daughters' locker rooms.

Which is more likely: that the Republicans find a successor to Trump with less glaring character flaws, or that the Democrats find a candidate willing to face down their insane activists?

To be clear, I don't claim to be an expert on the US! I've never been there, and almost certainly never will. But I think the point about college sports is pretty uncontroversial.

Mostly because 'college sport' is massive in the US in a way that doesn't really have an equivalent here, the 'soccer Moms', etc. Maybe Americans are more likely than Brits to get their news from local State or city newspapers, most of which are pretty conservative. All of that on top of the polarisation you mention.

I think it's more of a vote-winner in the US than it is in the UK.

Say what now? Are you referring to Tucker Carlson?

I agree that Democrats are leaving votes on the table, mine is amoung them. Their push towards extremes and playing to their activist base hurts them badly.

But Carlson’s point is that the Republicans won’t win over many votes by spending time and money on it. And he sees other policies as more fundamental to (his idea of) Republicanism and more fundamental to developing a stable successful country. He sees it as a distraction from what they really should be doing. (I think he’s totally wrong about what will develop a stable successful country but I agree with him that GI is not going to gain them a significant number of votes from the centre).

But you aren't capturing swing voters by messaging on social liberalism. You're only pandering to your core supporters. You may stop them heading off to support a more extreme party but you aren't going to cement your place in politics that way.

What American voters want is a sound economy and decent job opportunities. That is what will win them votes. Despite how well Trump's "Kamal Harris is for Them/They, Trump is for You" messaging went over, he won because of the economy.

And the problem is that elected Democrats live in terror of what they call the Groups.

This isn't just a case of Democrats in deep blue states going off the deep end, while their candidates in swing states can tack closer to the centre ground. Even in states like Iowa and Arizona, elected Democrats are afraid of breaking from the party line on trans.

There's 13 House Democrats running in districts that Trump won last year. Boys in girls' sports is a golden opportunity for them to have a Sister Souljah moment, but none seem willing to take it. They're all too scared of being monstered by the activists.

I think the main chance for a return to sanity is if one or preferably several aspiring 2028 presidential candidates - Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer - looks at the polling and figures they're on a hiding to nothing supporting the Chase Strangio position.

You're not wrong, but the Democrats are likely to need every vote they can get to gain control of the Senate in 2026 (and it's hardly a foregone conclusion that they'll gain control of the House of Representatives). The Republicans have nothing to lose from making gender ideology an issue in the mid-term elections, as in the last presidential elections, and in fact they plan to:

https://www.them.us/story/trump-trans-rights-2026-midterm-elections-wedge-issue

Not sure what happened to him. Once upon a time he was quite sweet but then he became unhinged.