Andy Beshear's secret weapon is that he has core beliefs that that don't change based on consultants and polling. More than any particular policy, I think that's what is lacking in far too many politicians today. It doesn't hurt that his Christian faith begins with "Every person is a child of God." and continues with "What you do for the least of these, you do for me." It steals the thunder of the Christian Nationalists. I'd love to see my Governor Andy on the national ticket in 2028.
“Andy Beshear's secret weapon is that he has core beliefs that that don't change based on consultants and polling.”
I think it’s certainly a problem for mainstream Dems with their consultants and focus groups, thinking they can survey their way to the sweet spot on every policy position.
Republicans are a cancer, so voting for them is a nonstarter, but there’s a reason I’ll die an Independent. If I ever considered affiliation all I’d have to do is think of Moulton, Acton, Kaptur and the rest of the spineless wonders scattered throughout the party.
Andy Beshear is right: throwing the transgender community under the bus is a political mistake—and the recent record gives us plenty of reason to question whether this strategy works.
Beshear has already shown that a Democrat can stand up for transgender Kentuckians even in a deeply Republican state. In 2025, he vetoed legislation that would have restricted Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care and reversed his protections against conversion therapy.
Look at Virginia as well. Republican campaigns made transgender issues a major part of their advertising, while Democratic campaigns focused heavily on issues such as the economy and health care. The 2025 results provide no evidence that anti-trans attacks were a magic formula for winning elections.
Democratic politicians need to understand something fundamental: transgender Americans are voters, too. LGBTQ+ families are voters, their friends are voters, and their allies are voters.
You cannot build a winning coalition by telling one group of people that their rights are expendable whenever an election gets difficult.
Stand for your principles. Treat transgender Americans with dignity. And remember: every person has a vote—and every vote counts.
It's a very curious thing: When some Democrats throw trans people under the bus seemingly without major ramifications one way or the other, other Democrats take that as the "all-clear" for them to do the same.
Yet, when politicians like Andy Beshear choose to support trans people because it's the right thing to do, and there are no major ramifications one way or the other, other Democrats tend to shrug.
The lesson is that no matter where you come out on trans people, there won't be major ramifications. So, why not just do the right thing?
The Cost of scapegoating vulnerable groups will always erode the Democratic Coalition, not build it.
In competitive elections across battleground states, a familiar script plays out in political war rooms. Facing high-rotation attack ads and anxiety among swing voters, Democratic candidates are urged by campaign consultants to "thread the needle" on social wedge issues. The latest casualty of this playbook is the debate over transgender youth, where candidates—ranging from Dr. Amy Acton in Ohio to moderate Democrats nationwide—have attempted to neutralize conservative talking points by adopting language like "opposing boys in girls' sports".
To campaign strategists, this maneuver looks like a low-cost tactical retreat: a quick, defensive pivot to protect a candidate from being labeled "out of touch," allowing them to redirect the conversation back to economic or healthcare issues. But outside the insulated bubble of polling data and focus groups, this strategy exacts a devastating toll—both on the real human beings used as political collateral and on the foundational solidarity of the Democratic coalition itself.
At the center of this strategy lies a glaring moral asymmetry. The target of these rhetorical compromises is an extraordinarily small, deeply vulnerable segment of the population: transgender children under the age of 17. These are kids attempting to navigate adolescence, form friendships, and participate in school activities amidst unprecedented public hostility.
When mainstream political leaders—particularly those who run on platforms of public health, science, and human dignity—adopt the vocabulary of opponents, the impact on these youth is profound. Language in politics is never neutral. Referring to trans girls as "boys" does not represent a middle ground; it validates the core premise of their erasure. In the cold math of campaign mechanics, the emotional safety and societal acceptance of these children are treated as expendable trade-offs to secure moderate votes.
The Historical Poison of Scapegoating
This political calculation echoes a dangerous, well-worn historical pattern. Throughout history, during periods of economic uncertainty or rapid cultural shift, political movements routinely select a small, defenseless minority to bear the blame for broader social anxieties. Scapegoating works politically because it is effortless: it offers a simple, villainized target in place of complex, systemic solutions.
History also demonstrates that scapegoating is inherently toxic to the broader social fabric. When a society normalizes using a vulnerable population as a political punching bag, it degrades public empathy, erodes civic trust, and conditions citizens to view their neighbors through a lens of suspicion. By validating rather than confronting these campaigns of target selection, political candidates help cement the very intolerance they claim to oppose.
Beyond its moral cost, the practice of side-stepping civil rights issues fatally undermines the Democratic Party from within.
The Democratic Party is not an ideologically uniform monolith; it is a multi-generational, multi-racial coalition held together by a shared compact. That compact rests on the principle that the party will stand up for marginalized communities against systemic discrimination, regardless of political expediency.
When party leaders decide that certain members of this coalition are too politically inconvenient to defend, the compact breaks:
* It Alienates the Core Mobilizing Base: The activists, young voters, and civil rights advocates who form the engine of Democratic campaigns do not view human rights as transactional. Watching party leadership "punch down" or retreat under pressure breeds deep cynicism, turning enthusiastic organizers into reluctant, demotivated voters.
* It Fails to Persuade Opponents: Political triangulation rarely succeeds on its own terms. Opponents are seldom convinced by a candidate who echoes their framing; instead, swing voters perceive a lack of core conviction, while conservative campaigns simply move the goalposts to demand further concessions.
* It Normalizes the Opposition's Premises: By agreeing to argue within the boundaries set by conservative strategists, Democrats yield the moral high ground. Instead of explaining why inclusion and medical privacy matter, candidates legitimize panic-driven rhetoric, making it harder to defend rights in the future.
The Need for Moral Clarity
True political leadership requires rejecting the premise of scapegoating altogether. Candidates who have successfully navigated tough electoral terrain without abandoning vulnerable communities—such as Senator Ed Markey in Massachusetts or healthcare providers running on medical privacy—demonstrate that voters respond to genuine conviction and clear moral boundaries.
The path forward for a durable coalition cannot involve trading away the dignity of young trans people for a temporary polling buffer. A political party that fails to protect its most vulnerable members when it is difficult ultimately loses the trust required to lead at all.
My biggest problem is when they refer to transgender girls as boys for reasons I stated. If they say, I don’t think trans girls should play contact sports with girls. That does not erase the existence of trans girl and can be debated. But so much of the rights rhetoric on transgender people is worded in ways that transgender people do not exist. I didn’t bring up the whole concept of the Southern Strategy because that is synonymous with scapegoating.
I can tolerate a certain amount of needle-threading, if it's done reasonably well and in circumstances in which it might make a meaningful difference - I suspect that's what Talarico is trying to do, with his 'if it interferes with safety and fairness' caveat ; I'm not sure if that counts as 'reasonably well' but I can at least see the needle-eye he might be aiming at. If he wins and subsequently makes heavy use of that caveat ('nope, neither safety nor fairness are compromised by the presence of trans kids'), and if losing that race curtails Paxton's career as a political grifter, I think more good than harm will have come of that particular instance.
In most of the other cases, as far as I can tell, it's not threading any needle at all, it's just flat-out capitulation, for no good reason - not even expediency, since any claim to expedience is based on premises whose faultiness is obvious if one makes even a bit of effort to look (e.g., whether this is even an issue moderates care about).
Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just unpacking my perspective on the phrase 'threading the needle', since I've been thinking about that phrase a lot lately.
Beshear is refreshing - a Democrat who's able to succeed in conservative Kentucky without abandoning progressive principles. Honestly, he's near the top of my list for 2028.
It looks to me like Tapper gave legitimacy to these Democrats by changing their phrasing from “boys” to “transgender girls” and by presenting it as an ongoing debate when these particular candidates have made their position clear. He diluted their maligning of transgender people.
And was he also baiting Beshear for a sound bite or something? Keeping this issue on the front burner?
How is it that a democrat in deep red Kentucky gets this but others, especially in Ohio don’t.
It's because the majority of all politicians are in it for themselves and never think how can I help my constituents.
There are things about Beshear that give me pause... BUT NOT THIS! Bravo for having courage to buck the Corp. Dem. tide!
Andy Beshear's secret weapon is that he has core beliefs that that don't change based on consultants and polling. More than any particular policy, I think that's what is lacking in far too many politicians today. It doesn't hurt that his Christian faith begins with "Every person is a child of God." and continues with "What you do for the least of these, you do for me." It steals the thunder of the Christian Nationalists. I'd love to see my Governor Andy on the national ticket in 2028.
“Andy Beshear's secret weapon is that he has core beliefs that that don't change based on consultants and polling.”
I think it’s certainly a problem for mainstream Dems with their consultants and focus groups, thinking they can survey their way to the sweet spot on every policy position.
Republicans are a cancer, so voting for them is a nonstarter, but there’s a reason I’ll die an Independent. If I ever considered affiliation all I’d have to do is think of Moulton, Acton, Kaptur and the rest of the spineless wonders scattered throughout the party.
I too.
If Beshear didn't need transphobia to win in Kentucky, then no Democrat anywhere needs it. Not in Texas, not in Ohio, and certainly not in New York.
THIS comment. Exactly.
Why can't all democrats see this? At least someone out there in a position of authority is defending us. Maybe it will lead others to do the same.
And history will not remember prettily those who do throw transgender people under the bus . . .
Remains to be seen how soon that comes bout.
Thank you for the reporting, Mrs. Reed,
Andy Beshear is right: throwing the transgender community under the bus is a political mistake—and the recent record gives us plenty of reason to question whether this strategy works.
Beshear has already shown that a Democrat can stand up for transgender Kentuckians even in a deeply Republican state. In 2025, he vetoed legislation that would have restricted Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care and reversed his protections against conversion therapy.
Look at Virginia as well. Republican campaigns made transgender issues a major part of their advertising, while Democratic campaigns focused heavily on issues such as the economy and health care. The 2025 results provide no evidence that anti-trans attacks were a magic formula for winning elections.
Democratic politicians need to understand something fundamental: transgender Americans are voters, too. LGBTQ+ families are voters, their friends are voters, and their allies are voters.
You cannot build a winning coalition by telling one group of people that their rights are expendable whenever an election gets difficult.
Stand for your principles. Treat transgender Americans with dignity. And remember: every person has a vote—and every vote counts.
“We don’t throw anybody under the bus. That is not the party that we are.”
Best message so far. However, the midterm results will be the first sign of where we’re heading as a country and as a people.
It's a very curious thing: When some Democrats throw trans people under the bus seemingly without major ramifications one way or the other, other Democrats take that as the "all-clear" for them to do the same.
Yet, when politicians like Andy Beshear choose to support trans people because it's the right thing to do, and there are no major ramifications one way or the other, other Democrats tend to shrug.
The lesson is that no matter where you come out on trans people, there won't be major ramifications. So, why not just do the right thing?
The Cost of scapegoating vulnerable groups will always erode the Democratic Coalition, not build it.
In competitive elections across battleground states, a familiar script plays out in political war rooms. Facing high-rotation attack ads and anxiety among swing voters, Democratic candidates are urged by campaign consultants to "thread the needle" on social wedge issues. The latest casualty of this playbook is the debate over transgender youth, where candidates—ranging from Dr. Amy Acton in Ohio to moderate Democrats nationwide—have attempted to neutralize conservative talking points by adopting language like "opposing boys in girls' sports".
To campaign strategists, this maneuver looks like a low-cost tactical retreat: a quick, defensive pivot to protect a candidate from being labeled "out of touch," allowing them to redirect the conversation back to economic or healthcare issues. But outside the insulated bubble of polling data and focus groups, this strategy exacts a devastating toll—both on the real human beings used as political collateral and on the foundational solidarity of the Democratic coalition itself.
At the center of this strategy lies a glaring moral asymmetry. The target of these rhetorical compromises is an extraordinarily small, deeply vulnerable segment of the population: transgender children under the age of 17. These are kids attempting to navigate adolescence, form friendships, and participate in school activities amidst unprecedented public hostility.
When mainstream political leaders—particularly those who run on platforms of public health, science, and human dignity—adopt the vocabulary of opponents, the impact on these youth is profound. Language in politics is never neutral. Referring to trans girls as "boys" does not represent a middle ground; it validates the core premise of their erasure. In the cold math of campaign mechanics, the emotional safety and societal acceptance of these children are treated as expendable trade-offs to secure moderate votes.
The Historical Poison of Scapegoating
This political calculation echoes a dangerous, well-worn historical pattern. Throughout history, during periods of economic uncertainty or rapid cultural shift, political movements routinely select a small, defenseless minority to bear the blame for broader social anxieties. Scapegoating works politically because it is effortless: it offers a simple, villainized target in place of complex, systemic solutions.
History also demonstrates that scapegoating is inherently toxic to the broader social fabric. When a society normalizes using a vulnerable population as a political punching bag, it degrades public empathy, erodes civic trust, and conditions citizens to view their neighbors through a lens of suspicion. By validating rather than confronting these campaigns of target selection, political candidates help cement the very intolerance they claim to oppose.
Beyond its moral cost, the practice of side-stepping civil rights issues fatally undermines the Democratic Party from within.
The Democratic Party is not an ideologically uniform monolith; it is a multi-generational, multi-racial coalition held together by a shared compact. That compact rests on the principle that the party will stand up for marginalized communities against systemic discrimination, regardless of political expediency.
When party leaders decide that certain members of this coalition are too politically inconvenient to defend, the compact breaks:
* It Alienates the Core Mobilizing Base: The activists, young voters, and civil rights advocates who form the engine of Democratic campaigns do not view human rights as transactional. Watching party leadership "punch down" or retreat under pressure breeds deep cynicism, turning enthusiastic organizers into reluctant, demotivated voters.
* It Fails to Persuade Opponents: Political triangulation rarely succeeds on its own terms. Opponents are seldom convinced by a candidate who echoes their framing; instead, swing voters perceive a lack of core conviction, while conservative campaigns simply move the goalposts to demand further concessions.
* It Normalizes the Opposition's Premises: By agreeing to argue within the boundaries set by conservative strategists, Democrats yield the moral high ground. Instead of explaining why inclusion and medical privacy matter, candidates legitimize panic-driven rhetoric, making it harder to defend rights in the future.
The Need for Moral Clarity
True political leadership requires rejecting the premise of scapegoating altogether. Candidates who have successfully navigated tough electoral terrain without abandoning vulnerable communities—such as Senator Ed Markey in Massachusetts or healthcare providers running on medical privacy—demonstrate that voters respond to genuine conviction and clear moral boundaries.
The path forward for a durable coalition cannot involve trading away the dignity of young trans people for a temporary polling buffer. A political party that fails to protect its most vulnerable members when it is difficult ultimately loses the trust required to lead at all.
My biggest problem is when they refer to transgender girls as boys for reasons I stated. If they say, I don’t think trans girls should play contact sports with girls. That does not erase the existence of trans girl and can be debated. But so much of the rights rhetoric on transgender people is worded in ways that transgender people do not exist. I didn’t bring up the whole concept of the Southern Strategy because that is synonymous with scapegoating.
I can tolerate a certain amount of needle-threading, if it's done reasonably well and in circumstances in which it might make a meaningful difference - I suspect that's what Talarico is trying to do, with his 'if it interferes with safety and fairness' caveat ; I'm not sure if that counts as 'reasonably well' but I can at least see the needle-eye he might be aiming at. If he wins and subsequently makes heavy use of that caveat ('nope, neither safety nor fairness are compromised by the presence of trans kids'), and if losing that race curtails Paxton's career as a political grifter, I think more good than harm will have come of that particular instance.
In most of the other cases, as far as I can tell, it's not threading any needle at all, it's just flat-out capitulation, for no good reason - not even expediency, since any claim to expedience is based on premises whose faultiness is obvious if one makes even a bit of effort to look (e.g., whether this is even an issue moderates care about).
Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just unpacking my perspective on the phrase 'threading the needle', since I've been thinking about that phrase a lot lately.
Not perfect, no politician is, but an important voice against fair weather allies in the Democratic Party.
Props to Gov. Beshear for sticking to his guns here.
Beshear is refreshing - a Democrat who's able to succeed in conservative Kentucky without abandoning progressive principles. Honestly, he's near the top of my list for 2028.
It looks to me like Tapper gave legitimacy to these Democrats by changing their phrasing from “boys” to “transgender girls” and by presenting it as an ongoing debate when these particular candidates have made their position clear. He diluted their maligning of transgender people.
And was he also baiting Beshear for a sound bite or something? Keeping this issue on the front burner?
All of my friends and relatives in KY love this guy. I see why!
This is what integrity looks like.
Keep on showing that "compassion and empathy" matter, Governor. As well as equal civil rights for all.