2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Grey Fox]

They're(and we) are about to find that out first hand.

[Tonitrus]

He has grown to prominence in the post-Trump GOP. He has to be dangerous.

Indeed. 

I think the the miscalculations of DeSantis and Haley trying to primary is that they're now done. Barring unforeseen developments over the next four year...If they try and compete against Vance, they will just get sunk again. Had they not tried to go against Trump, they may have had a clean shot in four.

[Savonarola]

Indeed. 

I think the the miscalculations of DeSantis and Haley trying to primary is that they're now done. Barring unforeseen developments over the next four year...If they try and compete against Vance, they will just get sunk again. Had they not tried to go against Trump, they may have had a clean shot in four.

This year was DeSantis's only real shot.  He'll be term limited out in 2026 and there won't be an open senate seat in Florida in 2026 (and it's unlikely he would have run against Scott or Rubio regardless).  His Covid policies and his 2022 campaign will be ancient history in 2028.

[Josquius]

I thought this analysis was interesting. Vibes with some of what I've been thinking even before the election and some responses we've seen here.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/10/donald-trump-the-left-social-media-rightwing-propaganda-progressives-woke

From Trump's victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people despise the left

The tumult of social media and rightwing propaganda has successfully cast progressives as one judgmental, 'woke' mass

There is no need to pick only a few of the many explanations of Donald Trump's political comeback. Most of the endless reasons we have heard over the past five days ring true: inflation, incumbency, a flimsy Democratic campaign, white Americans' seemingly eternal issues with race, and what one New York Times essayist recently called "a regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright". But there is another story that has so far been rather more overlooked, to do with how politics now works, and who voters think of when they enter the polling booth.

Its most vivid element is about the left, and one inescapable fact: that a lot of people simply do not like us. In the UK, that is part of the reason why Brexit happened, why Nigel Farage is back, and why our new Labour government feels so flimsy and fragile. In the US, it goes some way to explaining why more than 75 million voters just rejected the supposedly progressive option, and chose a convicted criminal and unabashed insurrectionist to oversee their lives.

The latter story goes beyond Kamala Harris and her failed pitch for power. When established parties on the progressive and conservative wings of politics go into an election, in the minds of many people, they represent a much larger set of forces, whether their candidates like it or not. After all, what people understand as the left and right operate far beyond the institutions of the state: political battles are fought in the media, on the street, in workplaces, campuses, and more. This has always been the case, but as social media turn the noise such activity makes into a deafening din, seeing most big parties and candidates as the tips of much larger icebergs becomes inevitable.

Trump leads the movement that was responsible for the January 6 insurrection, has made less-than-subtle noises about his affinity with the far right, and makes absolutely no bones about any of it. For the Democrats, the lines that connect a centrist figure such as Harris to the wider US left tend to look much fuzzier, but that does not make millions of people's perceptions of them any less real. Around the world, in fact, the left looks to many voters like a coherent bloc that goes from people who lie in the road and shut down universities to would-be presidents and prime ministers – the only difference between them, as some see it, is that radical activists are honest about their ideas, whereas the people who stand for office try to cover them up.

What the US election result shows is that, when told to make a choice, millions of people will draw on those ideas, and ally themselves with the other political side. Many of them, of course, have arrived at that conclusion thanks to outright bigotry. But given the remarkable spread of votes for Trump – into Latino and black parts of the electorate, and states considered loyal Democratic heartlands, from California to New Jersey – that hardly explains the entirety of his win. What it highlights is something that many American, British and European people have known for the past 15 years, at least: that the left is now alienating huge chunks of its old base of support.

That story has deep roots, partly bound up with the decline of political loyalties based around class: compared with 2008, 2024's Democratic coalition was skewed towards the higher end of the income range, whereas Trump's tilted in the other direction. The same kind of fracturing now seems to be affecting many ethnically based political loyalties: as Trump well knows, there are now large numbers of voters from minorities – and immigrant backgrounds – who largely accept rightwing ideas about immigration. That is partly because modern economies create such a desperate competition for rewards.

Why America voted for Donald Trump (again) – video 
11:59
Why America voted for Donald Trump (again) – video
But there seems to be more to it than that: polling shows the suggestion that "government should increase border security and enforcement" is supported by higher percentages of black and Hispanic voters than among white progressives – but the same applies to "most people can make it if they work hard" and "America is the greatest country in the world". Growing chunks of the electorate, in other words, are not who the left think they are.

Meanwhile, the widening political gap based around people's education levels – voters without college degrees supported Trump by a 14-point margin, while Harris had a 13-point advantage among college-educated people – creates yet more problems. Some of them are to do with "wokeness" and its drawbacks. Because the cutting edge of left politics is often associated with institutions of higher education, ideas that are meant to be about inclusivity can easily turn into the opposite. The result is an agenda often expressed with a judgmental arrogance, and based around behavioural codes – to do with microaggressions, or the correct use of pronouns – that are very hard for people outside highly educated circles to navigate.

At the same time, our online discourse hardens good intentions into an all-or-nothing style of activism that will not tolerate nuance or compromise. A message about the left then travels from one part of society to another: there is a transmission belt between clarion calls that do the rounds on college campuses, the Democratic mainstream, and unsettled voters in, say, suburban and rural Pennsylvania. And the right can therefore make hay, as evidenced by a Trump ad that was crass and cruel, but grimly effective: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."

In its own ugly way, that line highlights what might have been Trump and his supporters' strongest asset: the idea that, because they are so distant and privileged, modern progressives would rather ignore questions about everyday economics. Nearly 40% of all Americans say they have skipped meals in order to meet their housing payments, and more than 70% admit to living with economic anxiety. A second Trump term, of course, is hardly going to make that any better: the point is that he was able to successfully pretend that it would.

Think you know how bad Trump unleashed will be? Look at the evidence: it will be even worse
Jonathan Freedland
Jonathan Freedland
Read more
That then opened the way for something even more jaw-dropping: Trump's sudden claim to be a great unifier, something implicitly contrasted with progressives' habit of separating people into demographic islands. It takes an almost evil level of chutzpah to flip from his hate and nastiness to a new message of love for most Americans, but consider what he said about his coalition of voters: "They came from all quarters: union, non-union, African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Arab American, Muslim American. We had everybody. And it was beautiful." That is the increasingly familiar sound of populist tanks being parked on the left's lawn.

None of this is meant to imply that most progressive causes are mistaken, or to make any argument for leaning into Trumpism. What the state of politics across the west highlights is more about tone, strategy, empathy, and how to take people with you while trying to change society – as well as the platforms that poison democratic debate, and the harm they do to progressive politics. The next time you see someone on the left combusting with self-righteous fury on the hellscape now known as X, it's worth remembering that its current owner is Elon Musk, who may be about to assist Trump in massively cutting US public spending, while cackling at the weakness of the president's enemies, and their habit of walking into glaring traps.

Woke is a joke. But its one that an awful lot of people have been conditioned to believe is a very real nebulous threat doing all manner of ridiculous things.

Combine this with another look, which again vibes with some thoughts that have been flying around

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/young-men-donald-trump-kamala-harris

A fatal miscalculation': masculinity researcher Richard Reeves on why Democrats lost young men
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz had an opportunity to win a demographic that swung toward Trump – but they didn't fight for it, says the author

In the months leading up to election day, pollsters were fixated on one demographic: young men. This group, often elusive in political data, was showing signs of a notable swing toward Donald Trump and away from the progressive viewpoints of young women.

Traditionally a policy wonk, Richard Reeves became an unlikely media mainstay this election cycle, sought after by those trying to decode the concerns and motivations of these gen Z male voters. Reeves is president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, which he started in 2023 to create research-based approaches to bettering the education, mental health, and work and family life of men. Many of the institute's policy proposals were outlined in Reeves's 2022 book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.

Before the election, Reeves told the Guardian he was critical of the Democrats' inability to talk directly to men about their policy platform. He pointed to poorer educational outcomes with fewer men graduating from college and worsening standardized test scores. He also spoke about the worsening mental health, loneliness and suicide crises among this group and the lack of willingness by Democrats to address them directly. Now, with Trump claiming victory with significant support from American men, he says he understands why so many chose to vote Republican.

The day after the election, I spoke with Reeves to hear his take on the results and what they reveal about this misunderstood voting bloc.

Exit polls after an election are notoriously inaccurate. But do you think, from initial data, that young men played a big role in this election?

I think we need to wait and see before quoting specific numbers, but I think it's fair to say that gender did play a big role in this election, but not in the way we expected.

 If you're ever going to have a ticket that could speak to men, for the love of God, it was this one
The expectation was we're going to see this break towards Trump among men overall and we're going to see a break towards Kamala Harris among women overall. But only half of that really seemed to come true. Trump did overperform among young men, but Harris underperformed among young women. That is a surprise. I think that an election that was initially expected to be about women and women's issues turned out to be an election about men. My former colleague Elaine Kamarck, now of Brookings Institute, was on NPR saying that abortion just didn't play as big an issue as people thought. It's not that women didn't care about it. It just wasn't as salient.

When we spoke a few months ago, you made a case for ways in which the Democrats could speak to men and women. It seems like the Democrats went in the opposite direction – they really presented themselves as the party of women.

Correct. And not only do I think that was a gamble that didn't pay off, I think it was an unnecessary gamble. This was an opportunity. The Harris-Walz campaign could have leaned pretty hard into a pro-male policy agenda and presentation. When you have a woman at the top of the ticket, no one thinks she's a closet misogynist. With Walz, you've got the first public school teacher to run for high office, who is also a coach. I mean, if you're ever going to have a ticket that could speak to men, for the love of God, it was this one.

a man in black clothes and a headset looks up
Rogan, Musk and an emboldened manosphere salute Trump's win: 'Let that sink in'
Read more
They could have gone out there with some pretty substantive ideas. Instead, zip. Even my progressive feminist friends were watching the DNC and saying: "Is there going to be anything for men?" Whereas the RNC was a carnival of masculinity. The Republicans put out a welcome mat there for men and said: "We can see you, we're cool with you being guys, we like guys, the Democrats hate you, they think you're the problem."

Absent a proper Democrat response to that, I think Harris just ceded the ground.

So you don't think it was inevitable that Harris would actively lose the votes of young men?

I think you don't win votes if you're not fighting for them. And the Democrats didn't really fight very hard for the votes of young men. But they could have said: "There are so many progressive young women who are worried about the mental health of their boyfriend or brother. There are so many progressive women who wanted a party that would support their reproductive rights and do a better job of educating their son."

Democrats benched themselves from the argument about men
Instead, at the very last gasp, they started to say to men: "Well, if you care about the women in your life, you should vote for us. Or maybe the reason you're not voting for us is because you're secretly a little bit sexist?" Trying to either shame or guilt trip or scare men into voting Democrat was spectacularly unsuccessful.

In the end, the Dems just didn't do well enough among women to offset the gains that the Republicans made among men. It turned out that was a fatal miscalculation.

Meanwhile, Republicans did a good job of stoking resentment. They had one ad that told men: "You did everything right in life, you went to college, you got a job, and now the Democrats and women want to hold you back."

The zero-sum framing around this issue has been a huge problem on both sides. On the Democrat side it led to political failure. They benched themselves from the argument about men, because their zero-sum frame meant that they couldn't address issues of boys and men and still be taken seriously as a party for women.

On the other side, the Republican zero-sum framing was: you are struggling and we know who's to blame for that. We have someone to point to: women and Democrats. The reason that was a politically successful sentiment was because those men's problems are real, and for a long time they'd been neglected, so they actually did turn into grievances, and then those grievances could be weaponized.

man with hand on chin
View image in fullscreen
Richard Reeves is president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. Photograph: Martin Argles/The Guardian
So Republicans found success in the idea that the success of women has come at the expense of men.

In reality, it's not zero-sum. Men are not struggling because women are flourishing. But absent other reasons, it was allowed to become a more effective political strategy. What men heard from the right was: you've got problems, we don't have solutions. What they heard from the left is: you don't have problems, you are the problem. And between those two choices, it's not really surprising to me that more men chose the Republican one.

The Republicans also seemed to successfully detoxify Trump among young men.

One way they did that was through new media and podcasts. On [The Joe Rogan Experience], Trump went on these weird rants but you just got the sense of Trump figuring it out. Sure, he's got weird views on stuff, but he didn't come across as a hateful figure. The claims on the Democrat side about just how awful Trump was didn't resonate with the men who had just watched him do that podcast.

[The journalist and podcaster] Ezra Klein talks about Trump's disinhibition and that being both his strength and his weakness. I think that for quite a few men, just the injection of a bit of humor, a bit of irony, a reduction in some of the earnestness, a lowering of the stakes, it all helped humanize him.

Why didn't Harris go on Rogan? Why would she not do that? I mean, literally, the biggest platform in the world. She would have come across as real and human. It's not that that it would have changed the outcome of the election, but it's symptomatic of the Democratic attitude.

Your institute has a number of policy proposals for the betterment of boys and men. How do you feel about your chances of advancing those in the context of a Republican presidency and Republican Senate?

If Democrats draw the conclusion that it was because it was a female candidate, that will be the wrong conclusion. Empirically
Well, I do think that with men having delivered for Trump, Trump now needs to deliver for men. The question is: OK, is the CDC now going to actually take male suicide rates seriously and recognize the gender gap in suicide?

A super wonky one for you is, what's going to happen to the gender policy council in a White House? Now, I may be one of the very few people asking that question today, but I've criticized the gender policy council for being one one-sided. You can easily imagine that Trump and his folks would just abolish it as a kind of woke relic of the Biden-Harris era. What I hope they'll do is retask it so that it looks at gender issues both ways.

What about more concrete policies? Do you expect anything from Trump?

One big question is whether Trump will actually work seriously on apprenticeships, which he did, to be fair, a little bit in his first term. Getting an apprenticeship bill through, redirecting some of the money that currently goes to elite higher education into apprenticeships, trade schools, technical schools – all of that would be fantastic for boys and men.

What do the Democrats need to learn from this?

The danger is that they just say all these men became sexist, that they were lured by misogyny. The danger is Democrats believe they just need to double down on attacks on patriarchy and toxic masculinity. That would be disastrous.

Instead, they should show young men that they've got an agenda that's more up their street. Instead of going on and on about cancelling student debt, which is not a popular policy among men, they should talk more about trade schools and manufacturing jobs. I hope that they'll conclude that they need to win men back by explicitly pitching them, rather than trying to recruit them as allies to the cause of women, which is a political theory that they just tested to destruction.

I presume the conclusion they're also going to reach is that they can't run a female candidate for a really long time?

I really, I really, I really hope they don't draw that conclusion.

There's a reason the General Social Survey stopped asking the question about a female candidate in 2010: because it hit 96% support, and it's even higher among young men. I suppose it's possible that those men are secretly sexist or racist and won't tell pollsters that, but that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, we can't know.

If Democrats draw the conclusion that it was because it was a female candidate, that will be the wrong conclusion. Empirically. It will insult the male voters they need and it will hobble the careers of female politicians, potentially for a long time.

As said I do think the Dems, and indeed the left in general, should lean a lot more into the  sort of messaging that Waltz had.

Obsessing over trans people using the toilet and other such nonsense? That's weird. Why the hell do you care so much about that? Back in my town we just let our neighbours live their lives as they let you live yours. Really dumb to be obsessing over this when you've got all these actual issues going on like the cost of living, decline in working class communities, etc....

[DGuller]

The only conditioning I see is in trying to remove the word "woke", as if it will magically remove things people think of as "woke".  Frankly what depresses me almost as much as the election results is the seeming inability to acknowledge that woke shit causes resentment across the board.  It depresses me because if representative, it just signals continued dominance of far right ideas, because the woke left will just continue staying it its bubble and dooming the rest on the left.

[DGuller]

I also think that the woke bubble left fundamentally misunderstands where resentment on trans issues comes from.  I think the fundamental issue is disenfranchisement of big elements of society based on their views of trans issues.  The attitude is: "You don't understand the nature of gender, so you don't get to opine on it".  Whether that's correct or not is beside the point, people don't like being dictated new societal norms. 

I also think that on some of the trans issues, people feel really gaslighted.  Of course being trans would help you swim better in women's swimming sports, are you seriously trying to claim that it doesn't?  Whether the issue is important or not in the big scheme of things, people's don't enjoy being gaslighted.

[grumbler]

People love to be gaslighted.  That's why the Republicans won.

[Josquius]

The only conditioning I see is in trying to remove the word "woke", as if it will magically remove things people think of as "woke".  Frankly what depresses me almost as much as the election results is the seeming inability to acknowledge that woke shit causes resentment across the board.  It depresses me because if representative, it just signals continued dominance of far right ideas, because the woke left will just continue staying it its bubble and dooming the rest on the left.

What other option is there?
The left completely betraying it's ideals and deciding some minority groups deserve to be thrown on the bonfire... If they're doing that then there's no point in them winning. They'd be just the same as the right.
No.
Things need to be reframed. Get people to stop believing the bullshit about minorities being some big terrible threat. Get them back to the age old idea of mind your own business and I'll mind mine.
Give them a focus on issues that matter and they actually care about.

also think that the woke bubble left fundamentally misunderstands where resentment on trans issues comes from.  I think the fundamental issue is disenfranchisement of big elements of society based on their views of trans issues.  The attitude is: "You don't understand the nature of gender, so you don't get to opine on it".  Whether that's correct or not is beside the point, people don't like being dictated new societal norms.

This goes back to the thing of one encounter with a weirdo who has nothing to do with any mainstream party = everyone on the left is this way.

The gaslighting comes from the woke obsessed groups. And it has worked.

I also think that on some of the trans issues, people feel really gaslighted.  Of course being trans would help you swim better in women's swimming sports, are you seriously trying to claim that it doesn't?  Whether the issue is important or not in the big scheme of things, people's don't enjoy being gaslighted.

1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
 This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
 Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled - and that issue isn't that the way many sports define gender sometimes lets trans people under certain circumstances take part.

[DGuller]

People love to be gaslighted.  That's why the Republicans won.

I guess I should've clarified that people hate being gaslighted unsuccessfully.

[DGuller]

1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
 This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
 Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled.

A lot of people interpret "show science" as a stalling tactic.  They see Lia Thomas breaking records, and what they hear is "don't believe your lying eyes or your common sense, show me some science".  Rightly or wrongly, that sounds exactly like the gaslighting I mentioned.  I think this also assumes that science (or what is presented as such) hasn't been impacted by politics, which when it comes to woke issues a lot of people don't believe.

As far as it being an effective weapon, I think this weapon is very effective precisely because the left trapped itself arguing a position that to most people looks patently absurd.  If your political opponent staked out a patently absurd position that makes him look out of touch, of course you're going to keep bringing it up, just so that your opponent can keep reminding everyone how out of touch they are.

[Josquius]

1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
 This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
 Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled.

A lot of people interpret "show science" as a stalling tactic.  They see Lia Thomas breaking records, and what they hear is "don't believe your lying eyes or your common sense, show me some science".  Rightly or wrongly, that sounds exactly like the gaslighting I mentioned.  I think this also assumes that science (or what is presented as such) hasn't been impacted by politics, which when it comes to woke issues a lot of people don't believe.

As far as it being an effective weapon, I think this weapon is very effective precisely because the left trapped itself arguing a position that to most people looks patently absurd.  If your political opponent staked out a patently absurd position that makes him look out of touch, of course you're going to keep bringing it up, just so that your opponent can keep reminding everyone how out of touch they are.

Fair. Engaging system 2 will always be harder than those who just tap straight into system 1.
But that doesn't make the pro science side wrong. It doesn't mean they should embrace anti science. It just means they're handling it wrong.
It means don't fall into the trap. When the man on the street  wants to talk about trans women swimming nod along politely, echo their language with a "whilst they're going on about that woke stuff. We are campaigning on better opportunities for working people." and giving some graspable and relatable things there.

Then once in power they can bat away the attempts to roll back trans rights as a side matter whilst focusing on the important stuff. When trans baiting stops being a vote winner the right will drop it (overtly).

[Sheilbh]

This is from someone in the UK and there's charts related to the UK. But I think there is a lot to this thread from a pollster and focus group guy (from the right).

Although I would say that as my view is that actually the substantive content of "woke" has majority support, it's the language and the tone that's problematic (and plus ca change on the left - we have four Trotskyist parties in this country whose analysis, ideology and program are basically exactly the same but all hate each other over tactics ):

Luke Tryl
@LukeTryl
🧵There's a line of thought that Trump's victory means progressive causes are doomed in the court of public opinion. I don't think that's true, but I do think it shows more thought needs to be given to what ought to be a tautology but infact often isn't - inclusive progressivism
As someone who comes 'from the right' now spending a lot of time helping civil society understand/navigate public opinion, one thing has jumped out is how hard some parts (though not all) of the 'progressive ecosystem' can make it to be 'part of the club'
These are 5 reflections on how I think progressives could build a bigger tent. 1) Framing  - it can sometimes feel like progressive causes use frames that actively reinforce us vs them dynamics & make it harder for people to get onboard with a cause they might otherwise support
I was struck in our work on EDI how many people said versions of "EDI is always about other people, never people like me", part of that is that EDI work has had a tendency to neglect class in favour of other characteristics. But partly it's about the language used.
An example is white privilege. That frame only attracts real support from the most progressive segment. But ask if there are 'Areas of life that those from ethnic minorities experience discrimination compared to those who are white' and a majority agree & just 1 in 4 disagree
Why? In focus groups people recoil from white privilege & respond "i've never had privilege in my life" the frame is seen to ascribe blame & to minimise others experience of hardship - as opposed to recognition that racism/discrimination still exist which most people agree with
Linked to this - it's far better to focus on real people and their experiences, than campaigner language and abstract frames and structures. People want to be able to relate to a cause in terms of how it affects them, their family, their community, not an academic phrase.
People really care about fair play - so frames that chime with that work and that go beyond the individual. One of the strongest arguments I found equal marriage was that it was more likely to harm the institution if people saw their friends/kids/grand kids couldn't take part.
2) Tone: Linked to the above. There's been a lot of this in the post US election - how you communicate progressive goals really matters. Some will complain about tone policing, but it's the reality of how things are received. If you're seen to make people feel bad they'll recoil
Only Progressive Activists [this is one of the segments in his organisations polls] think it is helpful to criticise people when they make mistakes on diversity issues. When people are criticised (especially the well meaning) they clam up and become resentful or even hostile - the opposite of what progressives are trying to achieve
No one likes to be made to feel bad. Instead if you can create the space for people to be able to ask questions, make mistakes - and crucially (and to the next point) even respectfully challenge without fear of consequence you're more likely to bring people with you.
Part of that is not being purist - take wins. Recycling is a good example - Brits take pride in their recycling (& sometimes being curtain twitchy about less good neighbours). Rather than dismissing that as too little climate campaigners should think about how to build on it.
Ditto - something like Homes for Ukraine - rather than dismissing the strong public support for taking in Ukrainian refugees as 'because they're white Europeans' (which also isn't true!)  look at how to build on that spirit of solidarity and welcoming for refugees.
3) Debate -  Political debate isn't appropriate in every setting. But for campaigners themselves to adopt 'no debate' is disastrous - it A) looks dismissive  B) appears like arguments won't stand up to scrutiny C) cedes the airwaves/power to persuade entirely to the other side.
During  equal marriage debates I worked at Stonewall, and during the Bill passage the organisation was focused on going out and making the case - I remember speaking in Truro Cathedral - hardly  home turf - because  speaking to social conservative/religious voices mattered.
That isn't to say there should be no limits as to who you will and won't debate - there will clearly be those that just want to engage in out and out prejudice, but the limits should be defined to enable as many opportunities as possible for persuasive debate with  opponents.
4) Avoid universal progressivism - This is a big difference between some left & right wing campaigners - right wing campaigners are often willing to let you sign up even if you only agree on that issue. Whereas on the left you're expected to sign up to  host of adjacent causes
Most people won't have a strict left/right worldview - ideological consistency is weird. People maybe pro-climate but migration sceptic, pro-drug decriminalisation  but pro-death penalty. That doesn't mean not supporting others... but it does mean limiting litmus tests.
If you think of support for issues as a venn diagram, the more people you insist are in the intersection between supporting a whole series of different causes the smaller the area of support you're going to get is. Take people who don't agree with you on everything.
5) Don't spoil things for people - the fact that the actions of Just Stop Oil protestors now mean everyone visiting the national gallery faces long queues, or stopped workers getting to work, or getting to school/hospital
If people feel that progressivism = anti-social behaviour that makes their lives harder, they will react against it - and reach for options at the ballot box that will put a stop to it.
Obviously public opinion isn't all, but it is the surest route to winning. There maybe times to ignore the above, but I think what underpins all of those five points is that exclusive progressivism that makes people feel bad or creates a high bar to entry is unlikely to succeed.
Coda! Campaigners will be outliers in how much they care about their issue & likely wider world view. Progressive activists are the backbone/energy of many campaigns but can be ideological outliers. What they think will land may not. Speak to as many non-engaged people as poss!

I'd add specifically in the context of the EDI/DEI stuff that while there's always been criticism from the left of how corporate Pride has become etc that it was possibly tactically a huge mistake to let diversity become HRified. Because most people hate HR (sorry Cal )

[Tamas]

I remember we discussed the white privilege thing before and I agree with the article

[DGuller]

I thought that was an excellent article, Sheilbh.  I especially liked the focus on "inclusive progressivism".  Feeling excluded is one of the most powerful emotions a human can experience, and powerful emotions provoke people to make irrational decisions.  You can blame them for making irrational decisions, or you can ask yourself whether you've done anything that unnecessarily excluded them.

[Admiral Yi]

I thought all three articles were good.