The hostility towards men (especially white men) is overt and undeniable. And to make matters worse, the Democrats try and gaslight their way out of it, which compounds the problem by insulting the intelligence of the group they are trying to reach.
I don't see a path out of this because the feminist base won't tolerate a detente.
Read articles in the NYT and WaPo if you want to understand why Democrats can't win back males.
And read the commenters.
It is all anti-white and anti-male. Progressives dislike whites and males, and it is reflected over and over and over.
Democrats can win back male voters only by kicking progressives out of the party. Progressives have driven whites and males (and Blacks and Hispanics) to the Republicans.
Progressives blame white males for all of society's problems. Trump celebrates them. It's a no duh why they switched to Trump.
The Left has been targeting men with their "toxic masculinity" ideology for decades, and it won't be reversed anytime soon, despite a full court press in politics, culture, and advertising. How many TV shows feature Homer Simpson-style examples of how Hollywood sees men? Even their corporate sponsors such as Procter and Gamble used razor ads during the Weinstein-inspired "Me Too" episode to lecture us to "be better." After years of pounding, it's going to take a lot more than quick focus groups and certainly a lot more than showcasing unrelatable weirdos like Tim Walz to persuade men to come back. When David Hogg is not only your party's vice chair but your male icon. . . .Sheesh.
I laughed hard last year when they dressed Tim Walz as a bird hunter but forgot to tell him how to hold a shotgun. More cringe ahead! LOL. I predict that they will try two things: Earnest lectures toward "responsible" men, along with crude appeals. Both with be condescending as hell, and both will fail.
Men, especially young men of color, have decided the Democrats don't like them. They're not wrong. Democrats' tactics for dealing with this are essentially, "How can we persuade them to vote for us even though we don't like them?" Answer: you can't. Try liking them. Some of them are actually pretty nice, compared to the weirdos you've been cozying up to.
1) Quoting David (Lil' Hitler) Hogg as an example of the men the Democrats want to win back is like quoting Amber Heard at a mental health meeting He knows nothing whatsoever of the plight of young men in America. In fact, stay away from any anti-gun Harvard spooge.
2) I chuckle at the attempt to hurl millions of dollars at a "podcaster." Have Democrats no memory? Didn't they spend tens of millions of dollars and go through a half-dozen "hosts" before figuring out there was no "Rush Limbaugh of the Left?" It got so bad, Rush himself parodied Tom Daschle's show.
3) Right now, practicalities, not high ideals, are driving young men. I know. My son is one, but I hear the same convos from all my friends who have males over 20 but under 40. They HATE open borders, big corporations/the uber wealthy (which is who the Democrats are now), big tech; they identify with Trump---but not necessarily Republicans (see the current do-nothing Congress for an example of why). Democrats are phenomenally lucky that the Rs in Congress don't go for the jugular and pass ALL of Trump's agenda. There literally would not be a Democrat Party in 4 years.
4) If you want to know where men, particularly young men are, watch the gaming industry that has repeatedly seen "woke' games crushed and masculine games thrive. What was the most popular MOVIE in recent years (i.e., since the pretty macho "Endgame?") "MINECRAFT." Show me one Democrat who saw that coming.
5) Lastly, if Democrats think they can hang onto "green," as people like Noah Smith do, and still appeal to da youts, they are nuts. Tesla worked because it was a non-Ferrari status symbol. But as AI expands---touching almost every aspect of young men's lives---they are not going to tolerate any limitations on ENERGY or PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (which make up the vast majority of fossil fuel uses). Not only is "Green" a loser when it comes to energy, but it doesn't even show up when it comes to the 6,000 PRODUCTS made with oil. And until someone on the left really truly admits that, Rs will have the time of their lives.
Largely agree with the first four. As for #5, I am by no means a "green," and in fact think that the climate change issue really is a hoax. Still, no one outside of the industry itself is in love with oil either. What people are in "love" with are its benefits. There's a difference. I think BOTH sides largely fail to see this.
The Rs sell oil too much, rather than what it does for us. The Ds hate oil and ignore what it does for us. This is pragmatism speaking. Americans are in favor of what works, and that is how to deal with oil. Do what works. Get things done.
Joe Rogan got cancelled when he said that men who are transwomen shouldn't be fightin in MMA as women against other women after a transwoman beat a woman in a match.
Funny enough, David Hogg may lose his elected position with the DNC because he is a white male. Can't make this up.
It is not really clear they want to other than a way to electoral success. The traditional war between the sexes has been politicized and the Democrats have taken the female side. I don't fault them for this since women are their constituents but it is a fact and men know it. Especially young men who haven't formed an attachment to a specific woman which could ameliorate the problem. And it is specific policies too. Since you brought up Ruben Gallego, I call your attention to another statement of his. "Every Hispanic man wants a big ass truck" or something like that. California and about a dozen piggyback states have banned big ass trucks. Congress has voted to override this but litigation is pending. I will speculate that every Hispanic man also wants a Glock or something similar. David Hogg is not a good salesman. Curious to see what comes of the election redo. Rumor is that the DNC thought he was gay but that is inaccurate. So his election violated their diversity guidelines. Or at least that was the pretext when the real issue is him working on primarying incumbents. But the real issue should be the message that it sends to the half of the country that believes in the 2A.
"The traditional war between the sexes has been politicized and the Democrats have taken the female side."
Not sure I agree with you there, given that one of their loudest mantras is that trans-identified males are women, and therefore they should be allowed to use our bathrooms and changing rooms, not to mention compete against us, including punching us at the Olympics.
Though I agree that the Dems have a special hatred of men (except for men who are pretending to be women).
The following is a shaggy dog story, but I think it's worth it, so read on.
I wrote elsewhere here about dressing up Walz as a bird hunter but forgetting to tell him how to hold a shotgun. The following is a bit of a leap, but it occurs to me that the people who actually run the Democratic Party -- the activists and the officials -- are drawn from the cloisters, i.e. the various universities.
The don't know enough about real life, because they don't get out too much. I'm not talking about that student trip to Spain or the vacation to Paris or even the day trips from Vegas to the Grand Canyon or Death Valley. I'm talking about America, the whole thing. It reminds me of the story of J. Harlan Bretz, the famed lone geologist who unlocked the story of the Missoula Floods and how they shaped the landscapes of Montana, northern Idaho, central Washington, and the Columbia River.
How did Bretz do it? He got out of the office and walked around, looking. It was a thing with him. As a faculty member at the U of Washington in Seattle, he thought that the other geologists spent too much time in their offices and not enough time in the field, looking at rocks.
When Bretz developed his hypothesis of the late ice age floods, the academics rejected it and mocked him. The "consensus" was that major landscape features took millions of years to form, that relatively brief catastrophic events couldn't do it. High altitude photography vindicated Bretz, but his detractors never really forgave him. In the 1970s when he won geology's highest honor, the Penrose Medal, at the age of 96, Bretz quipped that it was because he had outlived his enemies.
Two points here. First is that the "progressives" who are deeply embedded in the Democratic Party will cling bitterly to their certainties until they die. You can beat them back, but they will not be eradicated. They can only be replaced. Second is that, in their offices, they proclaim their fealty to "The People," but in reality they don't much like people. These are very different Democrats than Democrats once were; this is why so many long-time Democrats will tell anyone who will listen that they no longer recognize ...
The high-altitude photography is elections. It's going to take more than one. I'm no Republican, but I actually want them to win in '26 and again in '28. The Democratic Party needs a good, hard series of whacks between the eyes of the kind that only electoral high-altitude photography can deliver. Then they need to get the hell out of their offices and talk to people -- not just each other and the declining legacy media -- and talk the people's language, and then listen for once in their amateur academic political scientist lives.
Good luck, "progressives." You're going to need it. Do you even begin to realize the extent to which your smug arrogance has turned people (as opposed to "The People") off? Until you do, your prospects are not looking very good.
Note: On my screen, the ending was truncated, hence this part, which might be duplicative.
I think it's hilarious that Democrats think they need a $20MM study on how to talk to young men. If they knew anything at all about young men, they would not need a "study" to tell them what "message" to send. Studies are phony, and so is "messaging", and everybody knows it, even the Democrats who hope that the target audience doesn't figure it out. Do they think that young men are all stupid and will fall for their fake "messaging", when they can see very clearly that what Dems really believe is completely different than the "message"? I remember that silly and fake ad that ran during the last election where they used male actors pretending to be "real men" to try and persuade men that Dems - what? Understood them? Cared about them? I have no idea. I couldn't believe that ad was real when I first saw it, it actually was very close to a perfect parody that mocked the Dems notion of who actual men are. The Dems are still lost in the swamp if they need to craft a "message".
Let's recognize that there may actually be a method to the progressive Left's apparent madness. Since their dangerous idealogy has already made disturbing gains within two of democracy's most cherished but vulnerable institutions -- academia and a free press -- why not try their luck at scapegoating men, especially white men, if only to further divide and conquer?
It's a gamble they'll ultimately lose, all that much sooner when most Americans get a handle von their sinister motives.
How can the Democrats ever win back males (or white people) when their own website says, "we're not interested in you"? Look at their "Who We Serve" page: it leaves out whites and males.
It's not that they misunderstand, as was written in this article. They understand exactly what they're doing. They see the evidence of their failures all around them, and they double down on ideas that are harmful, divisive, and just plain wrong. Here's Tim Walz after the election:
They won't learn --- most true believers can't. A trait of human psychology is that when presented with direct, undeniable evidence of being wrong about a belief, people tend to become even more entrenched. This gives us doomsday cults that believe their leader when he says that god changed the date, Germans in 1944 who believed that they would still win the war, and Democrats who believe that their brand of racism is virtuous and that men really can become women just by believing it.
Trump won the popular vote. Republicans won Congress. The Democrats have been losing members for decades (including me). And the bar graph in this article makes it crystal clear, again, that the "party of inclusivity" is alienating almost everyone. But they continue to insist that they're Right, Righteous, and on the Right Side of History.
No amount of evidence or reasoning will change that. The only thing that might work is repeated humiliating losses and the punishment they bring. I hope that when the losses stack up and the pain finally digs deep, new people will finally take over. If that happens, many of the true believers will pretend they never believed that men can be women or that being racist against whites (and Asians) is virtuous. Though these days, their internet activity will show otherwise.
And of course, the Dems could win because of sheer incompetence on the right. Last year, Labour won an astounding victory in the UK after 14 years of straight losses to the Tories. And they're showing us that they learned nothing from all that time in the wilderness.
At this point, I think the Democrats are in full denial that there's even a problem. I never thought I would call the Democratic party stupid. Well, the Democratic party is stupid. Their contempt for ordinary people is brainless and -- at best -- truly vile.
As long as progressives with their pathetically small percent of the electorate get to dictates Democratic Party policies, and worse how Democrats _talk about things_, they'll keep losing more and more groups, other than 'progressives'.
Stop importing 'tard speak from far-left academic kooks. Eject the trans activists and the sociopathic domestic terrorists of the Free Palestine cult, or keep losing elections.
I've no qualms about David Hogg's ability to connect with manly men who are persuadable or even Democrat curious. David is after all a direct descendent of the legendary Boss Hogg of Dukes of Hazzard fame.
The hostility towards men (especially white men) is overt and undeniable. And to make matters worse, the Democrats try and gaslight their way out of it, which compounds the problem by insulting the intelligence of the group they are trying to reach.
I don't see a path out of this because the feminist base won't tolerate a detente.
Read articles in the NYT and WaPo if you want to understand why Democrats can't win back males.
And read the commenters.
It is all anti-white and anti-male. Progressives dislike whites and males, and it is reflected over and over and over.
Democrats can win back male voters only by kicking progressives out of the party. Progressives have driven whites and males (and Blacks and Hispanics) to the Republicans.
Progressives blame white males for all of society's problems. Trump celebrates them. It's a no duh why they switched to Trump.
Trump doesn't celebrate white males. He just doesn't hate their guts. Which is enough.
The Left has been targeting men with their "toxic masculinity" ideology for decades, and it won't be reversed anytime soon, despite a full court press in politics, culture, and advertising. How many TV shows feature Homer Simpson-style examples of how Hollywood sees men? Even their corporate sponsors such as Procter and Gamble used razor ads during the Weinstein-inspired "Me Too" episode to lecture us to "be better." After years of pounding, it's going to take a lot more than quick focus groups and certainly a lot more than showcasing unrelatable weirdos like Tim Walz to persuade men to come back. When David Hogg is not only your party's vice chair but your male icon. . . .Sheesh.
I laughed hard last year when they dressed Tim Walz as a bird hunter but forgot to tell him how to hold a shotgun. More cringe ahead! LOL. I predict that they will try two things: Earnest lectures toward "responsible" men, along with crude appeals. Both with be condescending as hell, and both will fail.
Men, especially young men of color, have decided the Democrats don't like them. They're not wrong. Democrats' tactics for dealing with this are essentially, "How can we persuade them to vote for us even though we don't like them?" Answer: you can't. Try liking them. Some of them are actually pretty nice, compared to the weirdos you've been cozying up to.
HARD TRUTHS:
1) Quoting David (Lil' Hitler) Hogg as an example of the men the Democrats want to win back is like quoting Amber Heard at a mental health meeting He knows nothing whatsoever of the plight of young men in America. In fact, stay away from any anti-gun Harvard spooge.
2) I chuckle at the attempt to hurl millions of dollars at a "podcaster." Have Democrats no memory? Didn't they spend tens of millions of dollars and go through a half-dozen "hosts" before figuring out there was no "Rush Limbaugh of the Left?" It got so bad, Rush himself parodied Tom Daschle's show.
3) Right now, practicalities, not high ideals, are driving young men. I know. My son is one, but I hear the same convos from all my friends who have males over 20 but under 40. They HATE open borders, big corporations/the uber wealthy (which is who the Democrats are now), big tech; they identify with Trump---but not necessarily Republicans (see the current do-nothing Congress for an example of why). Democrats are phenomenally lucky that the Rs in Congress don't go for the jugular and pass ALL of Trump's agenda. There literally would not be a Democrat Party in 4 years.
4) If you want to know where men, particularly young men are, watch the gaming industry that has repeatedly seen "woke' games crushed and masculine games thrive. What was the most popular MOVIE in recent years (i.e., since the pretty macho "Endgame?") "MINECRAFT." Show me one Democrat who saw that coming.
5) Lastly, if Democrats think they can hang onto "green," as people like Noah Smith do, and still appeal to da youts, they are nuts. Tesla worked because it was a non-Ferrari status symbol. But as AI expands---touching almost every aspect of young men's lives---they are not going to tolerate any limitations on ENERGY or PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (which make up the vast majority of fossil fuel uses). Not only is "Green" a loser when it comes to energy, but it doesn't even show up when it comes to the 6,000 PRODUCTS made with oil. And until someone on the left really truly admits that, Rs will have the time of their lives.
Largely agree with the first four. As for #5, I am by no means a "green," and in fact think that the climate change issue really is a hoax. Still, no one outside of the industry itself is in love with oil either. What people are in "love" with are its benefits. There's a difference. I think BOTH sides largely fail to see this.
The Rs sell oil too much, rather than what it does for us. The Ds hate oil and ignore what it does for us. This is pragmatism speaking. Americans are in favor of what works, and that is how to deal with oil. Do what works. Get things done.
Good points Jim.
Joe Rogan got cancelled when he said that men who are transwomen shouldn't be fightin in MMA as women against other women after a transwoman beat a woman in a match.
Funny enough, David Hogg may lose his elected position with the DNC because he is a white male. Can't make this up.
It is not really clear they want to other than a way to electoral success. The traditional war between the sexes has been politicized and the Democrats have taken the female side. I don't fault them for this since women are their constituents but it is a fact and men know it. Especially young men who haven't formed an attachment to a specific woman which could ameliorate the problem. And it is specific policies too. Since you brought up Ruben Gallego, I call your attention to another statement of his. "Every Hispanic man wants a big ass truck" or something like that. California and about a dozen piggyback states have banned big ass trucks. Congress has voted to override this but litigation is pending. I will speculate that every Hispanic man also wants a Glock or something similar. David Hogg is not a good salesman. Curious to see what comes of the election redo. Rumor is that the DNC thought he was gay but that is inaccurate. So his election violated their diversity guidelines. Or at least that was the pretext when the real issue is him working on primarying incumbents. But the real issue should be the message that it sends to the half of the country that believes in the 2A.
"The traditional war between the sexes has been politicized and the Democrats have taken the female side."
Not sure I agree with you there, given that one of their loudest mantras is that trans-identified males are women, and therefore they should be allowed to use our bathrooms and changing rooms, not to mention compete against us, including punching us at the Olympics.
Though I agree that the Dems have a special hatred of men (except for men who are pretending to be women).
True but new.
The basic problem has been there for decades
The following is a shaggy dog story, but I think it's worth it, so read on.
I wrote elsewhere here about dressing up Walz as a bird hunter but forgetting to tell him how to hold a shotgun. The following is a bit of a leap, but it occurs to me that the people who actually run the Democratic Party -- the activists and the officials -- are drawn from the cloisters, i.e. the various universities.
The don't know enough about real life, because they don't get out too much. I'm not talking about that student trip to Spain or the vacation to Paris or even the day trips from Vegas to the Grand Canyon or Death Valley. I'm talking about America, the whole thing. It reminds me of the story of J. Harlan Bretz, the famed lone geologist who unlocked the story of the Missoula Floods and how they shaped the landscapes of Montana, northern Idaho, central Washington, and the Columbia River.
How did Bretz do it? He got out of the office and walked around, looking. It was a thing with him. As a faculty member at the U of Washington in Seattle, he thought that the other geologists spent too much time in their offices and not enough time in the field, looking at rocks.
When Bretz developed his hypothesis of the late ice age floods, the academics rejected it and mocked him. The "consensus" was that major landscape features took millions of years to form, that relatively brief catastrophic events couldn't do it. High altitude photography vindicated Bretz, but his detractors never really forgave him. In the 1970s when he won geology's highest honor, the Penrose Medal, at the age of 96, Bretz quipped that it was because he had outlived his enemies.
Two points here. First is that the "progressives" who are deeply embedded in the Democratic Party will cling bitterly to their certainties until they die. You can beat them back, but they will not be eradicated. They can only be replaced. Second is that, in their offices, they proclaim their fealty to "The People," but in reality they don't much like people. These are very different Democrats than Democrats once were; this is why so many long-time Democrats will tell anyone who will listen that they no longer recognize ...
... the party they once supported.
The high-altitude photography is elections. It's going to take more than one. I'm no Republican, but I actually want them to win in '26 and again in '28. The Democratic Party needs a good, hard series of whacks between the eyes of the kind that only electoral high-altitude photography can deliver. Then they need to get the hell out of their offices and talk to people -- not just each other and the declining legacy media -- and talk the people's language, and then listen for once in their amateur academic political scientist lives.
Good luck, "progressives." You're going to need it. Do you even begin to realize the extent to which your smug arrogance has turned people (as opposed to "The People") off? Until you do, your prospects are not looking very good.
Note: On my screen, the ending was truncated, hence this part, which might be duplicative.
I think it's hilarious that Democrats think they need a $20MM study on how to talk to young men. If they knew anything at all about young men, they would not need a "study" to tell them what "message" to send. Studies are phony, and so is "messaging", and everybody knows it, even the Democrats who hope that the target audience doesn't figure it out. Do they think that young men are all stupid and will fall for their fake "messaging", when they can see very clearly that what Dems really believe is completely different than the "message"? I remember that silly and fake ad that ran during the last election where they used male actors pretending to be "real men" to try and persuade men that Dems - what? Understood them? Cared about them? I have no idea. I couldn't believe that ad was real when I first saw it, it actually was very close to a perfect parody that mocked the Dems notion of who actual men are. The Dems are still lost in the swamp if they need to craft a "message".
I remember that ad - with the fat dude who claimed to eat carburetors for breakfast.
That's the one. They even used a horse and a pickup truck for props.
Let's recognize that there may actually be a method to the progressive Left's apparent madness. Since their dangerous idealogy has already made disturbing gains within two of democracy's most cherished but vulnerable institutions -- academia and a free press -- why not try their luck at scapegoating men, especially white men, if only to further divide and conquer?
It's a gamble they'll ultimately lose, all that much sooner when most Americans get a handle von their sinister motives.
How can the Democrats ever win back males (or white people) when their own website says, "we're not interested in you"? Look at their "Who We Serve" page: it leaves out whites and males.
https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
It's not that they misunderstand, as was written in this article. They understand exactly what they're doing. They see the evidence of their failures all around them, and they double down on ideas that are harmful, divisive, and just plain wrong. Here's Tim Walz after the election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92LdqtCjRs
They won't learn --- most true believers can't. A trait of human psychology is that when presented with direct, undeniable evidence of being wrong about a belief, people tend to become even more entrenched. This gives us doomsday cults that believe their leader when he says that god changed the date, Germans in 1944 who believed that they would still win the war, and Democrats who believe that their brand of racism is virtuous and that men really can become women just by believing it.
Trump won the popular vote. Republicans won Congress. The Democrats have been losing members for decades (including me). And the bar graph in this article makes it crystal clear, again, that the "party of inclusivity" is alienating almost everyone. But they continue to insist that they're Right, Righteous, and on the Right Side of History.
No amount of evidence or reasoning will change that. The only thing that might work is repeated humiliating losses and the punishment they bring. I hope that when the losses stack up and the pain finally digs deep, new people will finally take over. If that happens, many of the true believers will pretend they never believed that men can be women or that being racist against whites (and Asians) is virtuous. Though these days, their internet activity will show otherwise.
And of course, the Dems could win because of sheer incompetence on the right. Last year, Labour won an astounding victory in the UK after 14 years of straight losses to the Tories. And they're showing us that they learned nothing from all that time in the wilderness.
What is a “male community”?
Um. A Southern penitentiary cellblock?
At this point, I think the Democrats are in full denial that there's even a problem. I never thought I would call the Democratic party stupid. Well, the Democratic party is stupid. Their contempt for ordinary people is brainless and -- at best -- truly vile.
As long as progressives with their pathetically small percent of the electorate get to dictates Democratic Party policies, and worse how Democrats _talk about things_, they'll keep losing more and more groups, other than 'progressives'.
Stop importing 'tard speak from far-left academic kooks. Eject the trans activists and the sociopathic domestic terrorists of the Free Palestine cult, or keep losing elections.
I've no qualms about David Hogg's ability to connect with manly men who are persuadable or even Democrat curious. David is after all a direct descendent of the legendary Boss Hogg of Dukes of Hazzard fame.
:>) But in real life he is the direct descendent on an FBI agent.