USA 2024 presidential election

That depends on your definition on 'respect and compassion'. If it's "you be you and I won't think less of you for it", that's one thing. But when people are reading things like "California bans schools from telling parents if their kids want to be addressed by different pronouns", that is going to raise eyebrows for a lot of otherwise pretty tolerant people who don't think the State should be overriding parental concerns. "The government should know more about your kids than you" isn't a good look in a lot of circles.

The issue of the practical effect is something else. For better or worse, we have had a global culture for a few thousand years of segregation of the sexes. No mixed bathrooms and showers. Men's vs Womens' disciplines in sport, even in competitions where there is nothing physical like chess, though chess does have an 'open' category which doesn't discriminate. Suddenly this is being upturned over a couple of years by legislative fiat concerning an ethereal concept , and some people expect that to go well with the voters?

That's before you get to the philosophical issues. We're being told that sex and gender aren't the same thing, yet there is a great level of overlap. What do the sports federation use as their determinant? Why do we separate the sexes in sport anyway? If everything is fluid, just abandon the categories. Some women are naturally born with genetics, even if somewhat masculine, which make them more competitive than other women. Is that not the same as a person born male courtesy of the genetics even if they are 'in identity' female? Sucks to be the woman born in a woman's body without good physical genes if your dream is to be a world-class-swimmer, no? But there is no 'natural right' to be competitive. If your genes just came out 'wrong', find a different activity to do.

Maybe these are troglodytal, uncompassionate things to wonder, but that people are wondering it is a fact, and their concerns have not been addressed. Some of the concerns are physical. "Why have a girls' competition when born males are allowed?" Some are more privacy based. "Sorry, I don't want a born male to share the shower with my daughter on the basis of nothing more than 'I identify as…'" And the response is "you're transphobic. TERF" without even validating that they may have some concerns? That's not going to go well. Or more accurately, it hasn't gone well.

I would submit that there is a distinction between 'calling out' fascists and racists, and 'opposing' fascists and racists. One is useful, the other is not. I don't know if you ever watched the "Jonathan Pie" rant from eight years ago when Trump won the first time, but his statement "throwing insults doesn't work any more" is every bit as valid then as it is now.

"He's a fascist". "OK, but he's still going to get the trains to run on time." "But he's a fascist" "You said that. I need a reliable public transportation system to get to work, and it's not bloody working right now as it is. He's at least validating my concerns". "But fascist". "I heard you. He's talking about what I think is important." "Not being fascist is important!" "Yes. But I still need to get to work on time… Give me a non-fascist option which is going to fix it."

The bottom line is that if you want to stop a fascist from being in control, you need to give people a reason to vote for the person who isn't fascist, and saying "I'm not a fascist" isn't good enough. Should it be? Maybe, but the reality is it isn't.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/10/politics/democrats-election-party-future-voters/index.html

Pick one word to describe Republicans and Donald Trump, the focus group moderator asked, and one word to describe Democrats and Kamala Harris.

“Crazy,” said the White woman in her 40s, who hadn’t gone to college. Then: “Preachy.”

The focus group organized by Harris supporters in western Pennsylvania, not long after the presidential debate in September, was made up of a dozen people who voted for Trump in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020 but who were undecided this time, except for being sure that they’d vote.

Sure. Let's vote for the "Preachy" one because they're preaching the sins of fascism. Not because they provide a better practical outcome for my family, because they're not talking about it.

It's all very well having your standards and imploring voters not to associate with fascists but now the people (I presume) you are supporting have the moral high ground while the people you do not support have the White House, Senate and quite possibly the House of Representatives. One is slightly more impactful on all our futures than the other. A refusal to engage voters on their terms (regardless of your personal preferences) concedes a large part of the fight to the opposition.

No, you are completely missing my point.

People who want to vote for a fascist, racist, misogynist or whatever because the person they are voting for is a fascist, racist, misogynist or whatever are a lost cause. There is no point in even trying to compete for them, and there is no need to worry about a "race to the bottom" or for Democrats to compromise their values. Fortunately, I think it is generally accepted that the amount of people who will vote for a person on that basis are neither swingable nor particularly numerous.

However, expecting the opposite, for people to not vote for the fascist, rapist, misogynist or whatever just because the person they might vote for is a fascist,rapist, misogynist or whatever, doesn't work. Very evidently it doesn't work, we just had conclusive evidence of this a few days ago. Voters obviously have more important criteria to worry about.

Engage on those criteria. Have a bit of empathy (not necessarily sympathy) for them. Make them feel validated. "OK, I understand where you are getting this idea on (insert topic here), but here is why our proposal is actually better". Or at least "OK, we may never meet on this issue, but here's this other more important issue perhaps you might have missed and let me explain why it is important".

"They are bad and you are bad for considering voting for them" is not going to convince anyone. When has anyone ever been convinced by being talked down to?