And after crunching the numbers, the organization sees warning signs in the form of soft support for Biden in the 2024 electorate.
HRC estimates that this year there will be 75 million “equality voters” — who vote based on support for LGBTQ rights — up from 62 million in 2020 and 52 million in 2016. But the group says one-third of them aren’t a lock for Biden. In the six key swing states, hundreds of thousands are “at risk of not voting,” and another group of hundreds of thousands of voters are what HRC refers to as “double doubters” who will likely defect to a third party, according to data HRC shared with NBC News.
HRC has a timeline of Biden’s LGBTQ measures.
TIL not supporting genocide makes you a “double doubter”
TIL the HRC supports the genocide in Gaza. Damn.
Why does a vote for a war criminal necessarily imply a vote for war crimes? Trump is also a war criminal, and there are only three options (vote: biden, neither, trump) – all three will result in a war criminal in office.
This is an earnest question btw. I don’t understand your perspective.
I’m criticizing them not for who they vote for but who they endorse. That’s just to say that who you vote for doesnt need to match who you publicly endorse. Its possible to vote for the lesser of two evils and not to publicly support him.
That said, Jill Stein and Cornel West are also people that you can endorse and/or vote for. As well as “none” for one or both.
Pragmatically, they’re endorsing the lesser of two evils to encourage people to vote for the lesser of two evils. They think Biden being in office will be much better for LGBT people than Trump will be, to the point that it’s worth it to spend millions to encourage votes for Biden. Third parties are very unlikely to win, so it’s not worth it; they could spend millions on some other project to more directly help LGBT people.
If you think it’s OK to vote for the lesser of two evils, then I don’t see why you draw the line at endorsing the lesser of two evils.
The ethical thing to do is not to endorse someone who is funding a genocide, no matter how much he helps your marginalized group
But why not apply that logic to “The ethical thing is not to vote for someone who is funding a genocide, no matter how much he helps your marginalized group”?
It’s sad that Americans are stuck choosing between a genocide supporter and Hitler 0.96
We need a Parliament. Or at least some form of democracy
Respect for marriage act was good, but I want to see Biden and congressional democrats (and moderate republicans) do more to protect Americans from losing their rights. That means human rights should have precedence over religious rights. I’ll be voting for dems this election for this and other reasons. We need to keep our democracy too.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The spending blitz, shared first with NBC News, will cover the six key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
In his first term, Biden advanced the cause by codifying same-sex marriage nationwide, allowing transgender people in the military and directing agencies to support LGBTQ equality.
He has encouraged a growing and well-organized conservative backlash against some parts of the pro-LGBTQ movement, with schools, women’s sports and public bathrooms turning into fronts in the culture war.
A major survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that support for LGBTQ rights fell slightly last year, marking the first year-to-year decline across three measures after consistently rising.
That finding is consistent with recent surveys that show Biden struggling with young and nonwhite voters, a key reason he trails Trump in a head-to-head matchup in many national and swing-state polls.
The HRC president said part of its effort will be to convince voters not to support third-party candidates, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said he favors same-sex marriage but criticized gender-affirming care for young people.
The original article contains 919 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
A constant problem with autotldr is that it uses pronouns which refer to someone who hasn’t been mentioned yet in the abridged article. It makes it look like Biden “has encouraged a growing and well-organized conservative backlash” when that makes no sense. In the original article, “He” actually refers to Donald Trump, but autotldr skipped over the sentence that introduced Trump’s involvement. Similarly, “That finding” does not refer to the major survey mentioned in the previous sentence.
Honestly I hate this bot and I downvote it every time I see it. This sort of thing is easy to catch when it says something wildly out of character like this. But the same thing happens all the time in ways that are not-so-easy to spot, and wildly misleading to readers. And the pronoun thing is one tiny example. This bot might as well be selecting sentences at random, for all the important context it omits.
Just read the original article or skip it. Please don’t rely on a program that butchers the original article for the sake of making it shorter. This is the kind of thing that makes us lazy and vulnerable to misinformation.
