Never let them tell you that nothing ever changes in politics.
In 1996, just 27 percent of American adults believed that the law should recognize same-sex marriages.
A decade later, at about the time the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all the land, support was at 46 percent, with the opposition still holding on to a solid majority.
Last year, it was 69 percent in favor, 29 percent opposed — an almost perfect reversal of where the issue stood 28 years before.
There was no precipitating event of the kind that has driven other massive swings in popular opinion, in the way that 9/11 changed opinions on the threat of terrorism or how the financial panic of 2008 altered the view of the banking system.
And yet, I am unaware of any shift of similar size on a difficult social issue in such a short period of time, especially in a successful cause; not desegregation, not women’s rights.
Was it “Will & Grace” leading the way toward a new conception of gay Americans? A savvy new approach by same-sex marriage proponents? A backlash against efforts to enshrine restrictions in other states after the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed it in 2003? Generational shift caused by the passing of the Silent Generation and the ascendancy of the more culturally permissive baby boomers?
All of that and more no doubt played its part in the most successful social movement of my lifetime — a movement so successful that conservative Republicans now take pride in the fact that the new Treasury secretary is a gay, married father of two. A dozen years ago, the progressive Democrat newly sworn in as president was publicly opposed to gay marriage. What a whirlwind romance.
As the success of the gay rights movement was reaching its zenith, transgender rights emerged among activists as the logical next step for the cause. Many of the notes were the same as when the gay rights crusade began at the end of the 1960s: a marginalized minority pushing an unpopular cause against a dominant culture uncomfortable with the change. Fighting for transgender adults to live with peace and dignity seemed a just cause for what, by then, had expanded to be known as the LGBTQ community.
There were many avenues for the new effort, including those less controversial ones, like the successful bid to extend equal rights protections to transgender workers and citizens. Others, like the fight to obtain gender reassignment medical treatments for minors without their parents’ permission, have faced stiff and growing opposition.
But it has been in sports where we have seen the highest profile battles play out. Arguably the most famous transgender American is Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce Jenner, Kardashian stepdad and the greatest track and field star of the 1970s. When ESPN celebrated Jenner in 2015 with an award named for tennis great and civil rights hero Arthur Ashe, it was a signal moment in the story of America’s transgender movement.
The trip from there to the brutally effective closing ad from President Trump in the 2024 election — “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” — tells a story that is very nearly the opposite of what happened in the fight for marriage equality in the previous decade.
A new poll conducted for The New York Times by Ipsos found relatively little enthusiasm for Trump himself as his second term gets underway, and staunch opposition for some of his pet projects, like the three-quarters of respondents (including 58 percent of Republicans) who opposed Trump investigating or prosecuting his political opponents.
But on a host of issues, like mass deportations of recent migrants, international disengagement and rooting out government waste, Trump’s agenda had supermajority support, including substantial numbers of self-identified Democrats.
No area shows a more stark or bipartisan alignment than transgender issues.
While a big plurality of 49 percent agreed with the statement “Society has gone too far in accommodating transgender people,” the majorities on specifics were sky-high.
Pollsters asked: “Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female … do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?”
The response: 79 percent of respondents, including 67 percent of Democrats, opposed participation.
Pollsters asked: “Thinking about medications used for transgender care, do you think doctors should be able to prescribe puberty-blocking drugs or hormone therapy to minors between the ages of 10 and 18?”
The response: 71 percent of all respondents said no one under 18 should have access to these drugs, including 54 percent of Democrats.
Time will tell if we look back on these numbers a decade from now the way Americans of 2015 could see the attitudes of the late 1990s on gay marriage. Perhaps it will be said that this moment was one of overreach followed by retrenchment before a new advance. Or, perhaps, it will be said that the frenzied focus on trans issues of the 2010s and 2020s was a passing moment and that the issue returns to one of narrow interest.
But it will definitely be said that this was one where Democrats misread the electorate, including their own voters. And it’s not like this is the first indication they had.
Polls throughout the election year and before made it plain that there was limited support for trans women in women’s sports and medical interventions for minors. But the new Times poll is an exclamation point after the election results making it clear that Democrats have been out of step. Even if activists aren’t ready to hear it.
This falls hard on those who sincerely believe that lives hang in the balance. It would take a heart of stone not to feel sympathy for those who see this as the human rights issue of our time to know that their cause is being shunned.
But it is just as clear that while there are lots of places for Democrats to dig in and fight Trump and improve their own miserably poor ratings, his new orders on transgender participation in sports and transgender treatments for minors are hardly the most fruitful ones.
Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@GMAIL.COM . If you’d like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don’t want your comments to be made public, please specify.
NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION
Trump Job Performance
Average Approval: 46.6%
Average Disapproval: 43.8%
Net Score: +2.8 points
Change from last week: -0.6 points
[Average includes: TIPP: 46% approve – 41% disapprove; Emerson: 49% approve – 41% disapprove; Quinnipiac 46% approve – 43% disapprove; Gallup 47% approve – 48% disapprove; Ipsos/Reuters: 45% approve – 46% disapprove]
Voters sour on Musk
Do you approve or disapprove of Elon Musk playing a prominent role in the Trump administration?
Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 53%
Don’t know: 9%
[Quinnipiac poll of 1,019 registered voters]
ON THE SIDE: BATTER UP
New York Times: “Small, fertile, rugged and fueled by an expansive appetite, the [European green crab] is ‘an exemplary invader, a perfect invader.’ … As omnivores, scavengers and cannibals, they sustain themselves on almost any organic food. … They survive in water temperatures from freezing to 86 degrees Fahrenheit and tolerate sweetwater zones where salt meets fresh. Moreover, adult European green crabs can live 10 days or more out of water. … Some invasive species don’t lend themselves to eating; lanternflies won’t be on your favorite local restaurant’s menu any time soon. When it comes to crabs, the idea has promise. … It’s not hard to imagine low-cost crabs finding a customer base. They are abundant beyond measure, easy to catch and enjoyed in Italy and Spain, where diners eat European and Mediterranean green-crab eggs or molting whole crabs as delicacies. … ‘Deep fried green-crab bodies, I’m telling you, would be an excellent bar food,’ says John Painter, a harvester and home cook in Maine who has been experimenting with recipes. ‘If you like seafood, it’s freaking amazing.’”
PRIME CUTS
House and Senate split over reconciliation plan: NBC News: “As the GOP-led House struggles to begin work on ‘one big, beautiful bill’ to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda, the Senate Republican budget chief says the upper chamber will move forward on a distinct two-bill path. … The conflict over strategy comes as Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and a group of House Republicans meet Thursday at the White House with Trump. … Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday the panel will move forward next week with a budget resolution to kickstart a two-bill process after conferring with Majority Leader John Thune. … ‘It’s time for the Senate to move,’ Graham told reporters. … The Senate plans aren’t sitting well with House leaders like Johnson and Ways & Means Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., who are sticking with a one-bill strategy that includes an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.”
Dems double down on identity politics at DNC meeting: The Atlantic: “The Democratic Party, at least in theory, is an organization dedicated to winning political power through elected office, though this might seem hard to believe on the evidence provided by its official proceedings. The DNC’s [Democratic National Committee’s] meetings included a land acknowledgment, multiple shrieking interruptions by angry protesters, and a general affirmation that its strategy had been sound, except perhaps insufficiently committed to legalistic race and gender essentialism. … The good news about the DNC … is that the official Democratic Party has little power. … The bad news is that the official party’s influence is so meager, in part because the party has largely ceded it to a collection of progressive activist groups. … Neither [Jaime Harrison] nor his successor, Ken Martin, has questioned Joe Biden’s decision to run for a second term, nor any of the messaging or policy that contributed to his dismal approval ratings.”
Dems zero in on Musk as Trump 2.0 punching bag: Politico: “Democrats are starting to wake up and sketch out a plan to help them win back the working class: Turn the world’s richest person into their boogeyman. … Armed with new polling showing Musk’s popularity in the toilet, key Democratic leaders are going after the top Trump adviser who is dismantling the federal government. They are attempting to subpoena him and introducing legislation to block him from receiving federal contracts while he holds a ‘special’ role leading Trump’s cost-cutting crusade. … New internal polling … found Musk is viewed negatively among 1,000 registered voters in battleground districts. Just 43 percent approve of him and 51 percent view him unfavorably. … Democrats “shouldn’t chide Musk, Trump, and others for being rich,” the group wrote, but point out Musk’s conflicts of interests as head of DOGE and note that he could undermine key safety net programs to enrich himself at the expense of American taxpayers.
State Senator McMorrow eyes Michigan Senate bid: AP News: “Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow is preparing to enter the Democratic primary for an open U.S. Senate seat in the state. … First elected to the state Legislature in 2018, McMorrow’s profile surged after her viral 2022 speech on the floor of the Michigan Senate, hailed as a model for countering Republican attacks. … McMorrow would become the first Democrat to enter the race to replace [Democratic Sen. Gary Peters]. … Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who moved to Michigan in 2022, is the best-known potential candidate. Buttigieg has ruled out running for governor and is focused on a potential run for the Senate. … McMorrow’s entry could complicate things for Buttigieg, who would need to compete in the Democratic primary with another high-profile candidate with stronger ties to Michigan.”
After DOGE departure, Ramaswamy gathers support for gubernatorial bid: Wall Street Journal: “The billionaire says he wants to do something tangible in politics — not just talk about it — and is expected to formally announce a Republican bid for governor later this month. … Musk, the world’s richest man, referred to him as ‘Governor Ramaswamy’ this week, in a nod to his likely support. Ramaswamy has in recent days also won the backing of three Republican senators close to Trump, Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. … Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has declared his Republican primary candidacy. … Another Republican, state Treasurer Robert Sprague, has also said he plans to enter the race. … A survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters in Ohio on Jan. 26-27 showed Ramaswamy wins 52% of the vote, while Yost gets 18%.”
SHORT ORDER
Ex-AOC chief of staff launches primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi — The Hill
New York party chairs ponder Stefanik replacement — The Times Union
Poll: Rep. Harriet Hageman (R) favored for promotion to Wyoming governor’s mansion — Cowboy State Daily
Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford floats 2026 comeback — Pluribus News
TABLE TALK
Double-dog dare ya
“If I had an employee that sidelined me the way Musk is sidelining Trump, I don’t think I’d just sit back and take it.” — Rep. Jared Golden (D), a Blue Dog from Maine, tries to goad the president into scaling back Elon Musk’s White House role.
Many people are saying it’s the best
“It’s so good, Jake. It’s so good. You’re going to be surprised.” — House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) remains confident in the GOP’s chances of a painless reconciliation bill during a conversation with Punchbowl’s Jake Sherman.
MAILBAG
“Being from West Virginia — Lewisburg in Greenbrier County — I find your idea to name your musings Whole Hog Politics to be a little amusing due to the fact that the media supporting the Deep State spent years ridiculing West Virginia’s Senator Saint Robert C. Byrd as the King of Pork. As anyway, welcome to the party, I just want to let you know you have joined a team at The Hill populated by the brightest, hardest working, and insightful young people ever assembled. Just to name a few: [Alexis Simendinger], [Kristina Karisch], [Cate Martel], [Elizabeth Crisp] and many, many more. So settle down into the easiest job you will ever have because your team is the best. Oh, and by the way, next spring when you go to stock up on ramps, take Route 60 west out of Rainelle, up to the top Swell Mountain, just as you pass the Loops Road on the left find a place to pull over (there is an old two story gas station store on the left side of the road). Hike up through the woods next to a gully and you will find some of the finest ramps. I think Westvaco owns the forest so don’t worry about getting shot for trespassing. Family has been getting ramps in that gully for fifty years.” — Lynn Gardner, Lewisburg, West Virginia
Ms. Gardner,
I don’t think I ought to endorse any trespassing, even if it doesn’t cause one to get a side of buckshot along with their ramps! But I will allow that where I grew up, we did range and roam over hills and down creeks that were forgotten holdings of old and distant coal companies. I don’t suppose they missed the salamanders we took away.
As for the blessedness for Robert Byrd and his more than 51 years in the Senate, I would submit that if there is or was a “Deep State,” it was very favorably disposed to him. Byrd was the last of a breed: A former segregationist and Klansman who quickly and thoroughly made the switch to civil rights after Lyndon Johnson called the tune. Born into politics as a New Dealer, Byrd maintained an old bargain. He was an unsurpassed legislative operator who would employ his services for or against a bill for a price: the delivery of pork to West Virginia.
No state more than our own exemplified that old way of being. When socially conservative West Virginia was one of only 10 states that voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, it wasn’t for his stances on crime and abortion. It was for the implied promise that Democrats would continue to push federal spending upwards and out to the states, with a preference for the poorest ones.
When I covered Byrd around the turn of the century, he had a standard line in his stump speeches: “West Virginians have always known that they could count on four things: The good Lord almighty, the Sears and Roebuck catalog, Carter’s Little Liver Pills and Robert Byrd.” His point was that the pills — a patent medicine used as a laxative — and the other three would all reliably deliver for the poor folks of the Mountain State.
Like the old practice of paying for votes, that version of politics held that voters should get something for providing their support. As Democrats moved left of most Appalachian voters, the money Byrd and his colleagues sent home was the recompense. People mean different things when they talk about the “Deep State,” but in my understanding of it, it is the permanent bureaucracy in Washington that grinds away at the core agenda of the agencies, an agenda that was substantially created, like Robert Byrd, by the ambitions of the New Deal and Great Society at home and a sort of bland internationalism abroad. All of that lined up very well with Byrd and his bargain.
The new administration has undertaken the work of blowing up what remains of the “Deep State” like nitroglycerin on a stump. This will bring pleasure to many of Byrd’s former constituents and lots of poor folks who are fed up with what they see as a rotten status quo. But I bet, in the end, we will arrive back at the old bargain in which federal largesse is delivered to soothe the anxieties of voters. Voters, especially poor ones, expect some consideration in exchange for their support.
And in addition to finding the best ramps between Meadow Bridge and Ravenseye, you also certainly know where to look for good reporters. I am indeed blessed to be working with such a fine crew at The Hill. I see many good things ahead as we build on an excellent foundation. Thank you for your encouragement and support.
Appropriationaly yours,
c
“I am so tired of politics. I am so tired of the investigations being investigated. We have a bully and racist for president. I’m actually borderline scared how far this will go. Your column is welcoming. It makes me feel things aren’t sooooo bad. I think it’s well done and I enjoyed reading it.” — Sheila Hoover, San Luis Obispo, California
Ms. Hoover,
If we do have a bully and a racist for a president it sure wouldn’t be the first time. Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon might all have been answerable to those charges, and that’s just limiting ourselves to the 20th century.
The issue before us right now is not principally the character of Donald Trump, which is exalted by his supporters, deplored by his opponents and generally disregarded by the plurality of the electorate. The matter now is whether the system Trump inherited is sufficient to permit the good parts to advance, curb the excesses and maintain power in the other branches.
We have had strong, bad men be president. We have had weak, good men. We have had Franklin Pierce, who seems to have been both weak and bad. The presidents who are both great and good are far fewer between. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington do not live on in our hearts and on our calendars because they were typical.
In these cases of the bullies that came before, periods of executive-branch abuse were all followed by a resurgence of small-R republican virtue. The Constitution does not automatically balance the power between the branches, rather it is by clashing and striving that they balance themselves. Our system was built to harness the human urge for dominion and prestige by setting it against the urges of other women and men. As James Madison, the architect of our republic wrote in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
As Trump goes crashing through the barriers left to him by tradition and consensus, will Congress and the courts have ambition enough to put a leash on the presidency yet again? It may be unnerving to not fully know the answer to that question, but I would suggest that this is a reckoning long overdue in our badly imbalanced system.
I was so pleased to have your kind note and good words. May we continue to find a happy home with you.
Hopefully,
c
You should email us! Write to WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@GMAIL.COM with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name—at least first and last—and hometown. Make sure to let us know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the gloom-resistant Nate Moore, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack!
FOR DESSERT
Cheaper by the dozen: The Guardian: “A newborn baby may not be able to eat doughnuts but one has been supplied with a year’s worth of the treats after being born in the parking lot of a Krispy Kreme outlet in Alabama. Sha’Nya Bennett, 23, gave birth to her new son, Dallas, on Krispy Kreme property in Dothan, Alabama, on 22 January after a historic snowstorm prevented her and her partner, Keon Mitchell, Dallas’s father, from reaching hospital in time. … Bennett said that the child is ‘doing great’ following his impromptu arrival at the Krispy Kreme. Following the unusual birth, Krispy Kreme…will throw Dallas a birthday party every year until he’s an adult. The doughnut chain said that it is the first time they know of that a child’s birth certificate has ‘Krispy Kreme’ listed as a place of birth.”
Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of The Hill Sunday on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. Nate Moore contributed to this report.
