Do explain, as I usually enjoy blaming Republicans!

concordtom said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Sorry, but republicans are to blame on both fronts.

---

1. Who won? That's not even a question. It's a fact. Joe Biden goes down
In history forever and ever and ever. To try and raise it as a question is a Trump-come-Republican conspiracy. Idiots!!

2. What is a woman?
Again, republicans just trying to stir the pot for stupid people (aka, their followers).

Educated, or woke, as they like to derisively and dismissingly call others, understand that there is ge der of the body and gender of the mind - and neither is as clear cut as we once believed, which was that they were one in the same and black/white, or boy/girl as it were.

So, it's a gotcha question intended to put people back in the Duh/Uneducated camp.

---

They are both "gotcha" questions. It should be embarrassing as hell to be asked who won the 2020 election and to not be able to answer. I'd have more respect for them if they were just honest and said, "Look, as Republicans in 2026, we are pretty much all Trump's b_ _ _ _ _ s. That's just the way it is now, so don't waste your time asking me that question anymore. I'm proud to be Trump's b_ _ _ _!"

I agree, the "woman" question is more philosophical... and I would answer it as such, rather than just stammering.

concordtom is basically right about this. One question is simple and inability to answer is about cowardice in the service of one man.

The other question is very complicated (as nature is complicated) and many people want to hear what is correct 99% of the time while other people care about the well being of the 1%. Elections are popularity contests and caring about that 1% can be good but detrimental. In fact, as i write this, it is clear to me that stammering and thinking about this question is probably a sign of good character.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Sorry, but republicans are to blame on both fronts.

---

1. Who won? That's not even a question. It's a fact. Joe Biden goes down
In history forever and ever and ever. To try and raise it as a question is a Trump-come-Republican conspiracy. Idiots!!

2. What is a woman?
Again, republicans just trying to stir the pot for stupid people (aka, their followers).

Educated, or woke, as they like to derisively and dismissingly call others, understand that there is ge der of the body and gender of the mind - and neither is as clear cut as we once believed, which was that they were one in the same and black/white, or boy/girl as it were.

So, it's a gotcha question intended to put people back in the Duh/Uneducated camp.

---

They are both "gotcha" questions. It should be embarrassing as hell to be asked who won the 2020 election and to not be able to answer. I'd have more respect for them if they were just honest and said, "Look, as Republicans in 2026, we are pretty much all Trump's b_ _ _ _ _ s. That's just the way it is now, so don't waste your time asking me that question anymore. I'm proud to be Trump's b_ _ _ _!"

I agree, the "woman" question is more philosophical... and I would answer it as such, rather than just stammering.

---

The election question should not even be a question - except for the farce of pure idiocy, intended as part of a coup d'etat effort.

People need to understand what's happening here.

They will, one day, in retrospect.
My jabber jawing about it does no good, though. Except maybe if gives me a measure of psychological relief.

You'll see.

Muckieeye said:

---

The "low information voters" blanket covers a lot of people.

---

I think that is his point, and its valid.. Most people don't care or no longer care.

These are both wedge issues whose time has come and gone. Just like whether the Russians caused Clinton to lose against Trump, etc. The only thing that really has any traction is on the second question, as to whether trans can play in women's' sports, and it is pretty clear where things are headed after the Olympics did their 180 banning Trans and the recent SCOTUS decision. The next series of elections likely turn on economic issues, which usually is the case. It probably is too early for Presidential candidates to stake out strong positions, and the few Senate and Congressional races that actually are in contention in the mid-terms, likely will be referendums on Trump policies and the economy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Muckieeye said:

---

The "low information voters" blanket covers a lot of people.

---

I think that is his point, and its valid.. Most people don't care or no longer care.

These are both wedge issues whose time has come and gone. Just like whether the Russians caused Clinton to lose against Trump, etc. The only thing that really has any traction is on the second question, as to whether trans can play in women's' sports, and it is pretty clear where things are headed after the Olympics did their 180 banning Trans and the recent SCOTUS decision. The next series of elections likely turn on economic issues, which usually is the case. It probably is too early for Presidential candidates to stake out strong positions, and the few Senate and Congressional races that actually are in contention him the mod-terms, likely will be referendums on Trump policies and the economy.

---

It is awfully privileged to think the important thing about "what is a woman?" is who can play what sports. That is the avenue of the low information voter.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Muckieeye said:

---

The "low information voters" blanket covers a lot of people.

---

I think that is his point, and its valid.. Most people don't care or no longer care.

These are both wedge issues whose time has come and gone. Just like whether the Russians caused Clinton to lose against Trump, etc. The only thing that really has any traction is on the second question, as to whether trans can play in women's' sports, and it is pretty clear where things are headed after the Olympics did their 180 banning Trans and the recent SCOTUS decision. The next series of elections likely turn on economic issues, which usually is the case. It probably is too early for Presidential candidates to stake out strong positions, and the few Senate and Congressional races that actually are in contention him the mod-terms, likely will be referendums on Trump policies and the economy.

---

It is awfully privileged to think the important thing about "what is a woman?" is who can play what sports. That is the avenue of the low information voter.

---

I don't think is privileged, it is exactly what Pew Polls say is what is important to voters these days. Transexual rights rank way, way below economic and national security concerns as an everyday priority for the general public. For the few that care strongly, the views are deeply divided on policy, with the one exception being transexual in sports, which seems to be something the general public does care about. Use whatever tigger words you like, but the average voter just doesn't care much outside the sports context.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Muckieeye said:

---

The "low information voters" blanket covers a lot of people.

---

I think that is his point, and its valid.. Most people don't care or no longer care.

These are both wedge issues whose time has come and gone. Just like whether the Russians caused Clinton to lose against Trump, etc. The only thing that really has any traction is on the second question, as to whether trans can play in women's' sports, and it is pretty clear where things are headed after the Olympics did their 180 banning Trans and the recent SCOTUS decision. The next series of elections likely turn on economic issues, which usually is the case. It probably is too early for Presidential candidates to stake out strong positions, and the few Senate and Congressional races that actually are in contention him the mod-terms, likely will be referendums on Trump policies and the economy.

---

It is awfully privileged to think the important thing about "what is a woman?" is who can play what sports. That is the avenue of the low information voter.

---

I don't think is privileged, it is exactly what Pew Polls say is what is important to voters these days. Transexual rights rank way, way below economic and national security concerns as an everyday priority for the general public. For the few that care strongly, the views are deeply divided on policy, with the one exception being transexual in sports, which seems to be something the general public does care about. Use whatever tigger words you like, but the average voter just doesn't care much outside the sports context.

---

See my comments above about people in the 99% gender-speaking who care about the 1% and how they are actually impacted - not just the politics of it - have better character.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Transexual rights rank way, way below economic and national security concerns as an everyday priority for the general public.

---

This line caught my eye.

I think if a pollster asks, which of these do you care about more, the respondent will provide a considered evaluation.

If a social scientist were asked which issues raise a respondent's nervous system, it'll be another thing.

AI comments on my above assertion:

Quote:

---

What you're describing is often referred to as the difference between "salience" and "importance" in political science.

Issue importance: When asked directly, people rank issues like the economy or national security as "most important." This is a considered, rational evaluation.

Issue salience: What actually grabs attention, triggers emotion, and mobilizes behavior. These are the issues that activate the nervous system, even if they rank lower in abstract importance.


Political psychologists sometimes call this the "valence vs. arousal distinction": valence is how positively or negatively you evaluate something, while arousal is how much it physiologically energizes you. Voters may say the economy is their top concern, but a cultural or identity issue can be more arousing and therefore more decisive in motivating turnout or choice.

Another related concept is motivated reasoning people don't just weigh issues rationally, they respond to cues that resonate emotionally or socially. Campaign strategists often talk about "wedge issues" or "hot-button issues" that disproportionately drive behavior compared to their stated rank in surveys.

So the phenomenon you're pointing to is essentially the gap between stated priorities and affective salience. Pollsters measure the former; social scientists and political psychologists study the latter.

---

Politicians are always raising issues of fear, or how bad the other guy is (again, fear). People respond to fear. For men, homophobia is an issue that strikes something deep inside, not logical like "the economy".
Like, you'll jump if you suddenly see a rattlesnake. And you'll jump if a man touches you or looks at you the wrong way.

Such things move voters.
And it's why the women in sports thing has become such a big deal even though it affects a tiny fraction of all people.
Most people do not know a single transgender person their entire lives. Maybe they saw one once on BART.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Muckieeye said:

---

The "low information voters" blanket covers a lot of people.

---

I think that is his point, and its valid.. Most people don't care or no longer care.

These are both wedge issues whose time has come and gone. Just like whether the Russians caused Clinton to lose against Trump, etc. The only thing that really has any traction is on the second question, as to whether trans can play in women's' sports, and it is pretty clear where things are headed after the Olympics did their 180 banning Trans and the recent SCOTUS decision. The next series of elections likely turn on economic issues, which usually is the case. It probably is too early for Presidential candidates to stake out strong positions, and the few Senate and Congressional races that actually are in contention him the mod-terms, likely will be referendums on Trump policies and the economy.

---

It is awfully privileged to think the important thing about "what is a woman?" is who can play what sports. That is the avenue of the low information voter.

---

I don't think is privileged, it is exactly what Pew Polls say is what is important to voters these days. Transexual rights rank way, way below economic and national security concerns as an everyday priority for the general public. For the few that care strongly, the views are deeply divided on policy, with the one exception being transexual in sports, which seems to be something the general public does care about. Use whatever tigger words you like, but the average voter just doesn't care much outside the sports context.

---

See my comments above about people in the 99% gender-speaking who care about the 1% and how they are actually impacted - not just the politics of it - have better character.

---

I'm not sure we are disagreeing on the basic premise, but how you say it, and how it comes off as personal. I'm just trying to make a factual distinction about these being yesterday's wedge issues, other than the present political battles over transsexuals in women's sports. To get to OP, the reason politicians give you word salad when asked about these issues, is because they are polarizing issues. You get the same word salad on other wedge issues like gun control, immigration, etc . Happy to provide some snippets from Harris for example. How people judge someone's character depends on their own views, but a person's true character shows in what they actually do over time. We have no idea who these people that are that are polled for their views to make such judgments.