Nearly three years after Democrats suffered stinging defeats attributed in part to their stance on transgender issues, the party’s leadership remains firmly entrenched in positions that polls show are broadly unpopular. An analysis published by American Thinker on September 2, 2026, by Mike McDaniel, argues that the Democratic Party’s continued embrace of what he calls the “Trans Superiority Narrative” (TSN) is a political liability that shows no signs of abating.
McDaniel, a former police officer and Air Force veteran, cites the work of Doug Schoen, a Democratic lawyer and political analyst who has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton and now appears on Fox News. Schoen reportedly explains the party’s predicament as a consequence of the influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). According to McDaniel’s column, the DSA’s strong opposition to legislation banning biological males from competing in women’s sports has come to define the national Democratic Party’s stance on transgender issues, much to its electoral detriment.
Electoral Consequences of Trans Policies
McDaniel points to analyses of the 2024 election that suggest these positions played a decisive role in the outcome. The Democratic National Committee’s post-election autopsy reportedly concluded that Kamala Harris “had no answer” to Republicans’ effective advertisements highlighting her position on transgender issues. One PAC’s analysis cited by McDaniel found that former President Donald Trump’s ad, “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you,” shifted the race by almost three points in Trump’s favor—double his 1.5 percentage-point margin of victory in the popular vote. The Trump campaign also touted the ad’s success with suburban women, a key demographic.
The political landscape in 2026 shows continued fallout. In Florida’s gubernatorial race, Republican candidate Byron Donalds has made transgender issues a central attack line against his Democratic opponent, David Jolly, focusing on Jolly’s position on gender-affirming care for minors—though Jolly disputes the characterization of his stance.
Moulton’s Walk-Back
Perhaps most tellingly, McDaniel highlights the case of Rep. Seth Moulton in Massachusetts. In a debate against Senator Ed Markey, Moulton was forced to walk back comments he made just two years ago, when he said, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” In their 2026 debate, Moulton apologized to the trans community for any pain caused while insisting his underlying goal was to encourage open debate within the party.
McDaniel interprets this as a pattern among Democrats caught in insupportable positions, who often claim they are merely trying to start a “conversation.” He notes a perceived default response to such conversations is to dismiss critics as racists.
Leadership’s Position
Despite the electoral evidence, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is reported to have taken specific positions that align with popular views favoring bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports. McDaniel reports that Schumer has been the most explicitly opposed, calling such bans “despicable,” while Jeffries has been more measured, saying Democrats care about “fairness in sports” but refusing to support legislation to bar the practice.
Interestingly, even among Democrats, support for allowing transgender athletes to play on teams aligned with their current gender identity has dropped ten points since 2021, now sitting below a majority at 45%, according to the column. Yet party leadership continues to embrace the position.
Why This Persists
McDaniel attributes much of this to a combination of reflexive opposition to what he terms “Normal Americans'” values and a knee-jerk opposition to everything Donald Trump supports—what he calls “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” McDaniel also argues that the far left and the DSA maintain a veto over Democratic policy, putting the entire party on the wrong side of another key issue.
Looking ahead, all signs indicate this problem will continue to depress Democratic support in the midterms and into the 2028 presidential election, a prospect McDaniel endorses. “Democrats’ support for morally insupportable, anti-American, and destructive policies is fortunate indeed for the electorate,” he writes, asserting that it reveals the party’s “clearest, most exposed, and violent core.” His conclusion echoes a framing often applied to foreign adversaries: “It’s best to take them at their word and act accordingly.”
This analysis comes amid broader reporting on the second Trump administration’s efforts to pressure the medical profession to abandon gender-affirming procedures for minors, with McDaniel noting several multi-million-dollar civil verdicts against doctors and hospitals that have reportedly convinced leftist institutions to back away from the practice.
As the political debate over transgender policies continues into the 2026 midterms, Democrats face a stark choice between ideological consistency and electoral viability—a tension that shows no sign of resolving.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/why-won-t-democrats-repudiate-trans-madness/